Talk:Travis Kelce

Mentioning Taylor Swift in the lead

I am reopening this discussion because it’s absurd to mention a 6 months old relationship pk the lead of an wikipedia like some sort of a tabloid. They’re not even married. It goes directly against living persons policies. drop using wikipedia as a fangirling platform… Meryam90 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the person involved in the last conversation @TheCelebrinator:. It does not violate any policy mentioning the relationship. WP:GOSSIP only applies to unconfirmed rumors and mentioning every small detail of someone's personal life. Additionally, the comment is not commenting on the relationship itself, but the unusually high media coverage of the relationship and the pop culture impact of the relationship which GOSSIP doesn't specifically forbid. GOSSIP reads "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." You're acting like a very mention of it violates GOSSIP but it doesn't. It's not tabloid reporting to mention the large amount and slightly excessive media coverage of the relationship. Even 20/20 did an entire special on the media coverage of it. And for the record, yes Travis Kelce had media coverage of his previous relationships. But it's not anywhere near the coverage of the Taylor Swift relationship and to think that is flat absurd. (Don't take this the wrong way I'm not implying these as being a reliable source it just proves my point about comparing media coverage before and after) Travis Kelce has had more celebrity gossip articles about him in the last 5 months (since Swift showed up at the Bears game) than he had in his first 10 seasons of his career. He's even had way more than Patrick Mahomes has had so far in Patrick's career.--Rockchalk717 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Tom Brady was married to Giselle and we never mentioned her in his lead. Christian McCaffrey is currently engaged to Olivia Culpo and she is not mentioned in his either. Jessintime (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to reiterate what Rockchalk717 said above. The amount of coverage Kelce’s relationship with Swift has received in the media is far unlike any of the examples you’ve listed. She’s been featured on TV every time she’s in attendance for Chiefs games and her photo of her kissing Kelce after the SB literally made headlines. It’s not the relationship itself but rather its coverage by the press that’s notable. That’s why we should keep it in the lede. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It belongs in the lead—and not just for the avalanche of media coverage and social-media engagement[1] that drove a "cultural moment of unusual significance," as the New York Times called it.[2] It's financially significant as well. Here, for example, is Fortune: "Super Bowl–bound Kansas City Chiefs are riding a $331.5 million boost to their value just because of Taylor Swift"[3] When McCaffrey's engagement makes a company one-third of a billion dollars, we can add it to his Wikipedia page as well.

I suggest the intro sentence read: "Kelce's relationship with singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, begun in 2023, has drawn massive media coverage and stimulated viewership and revenue for his team and its league." PRRfan (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care about the wording. Just as long as (as I said in the previous discussion) it doesn't hint he's notability has anything to do with the relationship and it's clear the point being made is about the unusually high media coverage of their relationship.--Rockchalk717 16:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see how a six months relationship needs to be in the LEAD. how is it related to any of his achievements as a sportsperson? or to his 11 years career? It is sufficiently covered in his personal Life section.

Yes, it has received a lot of media coverage, but so does most celebrity relationship and you don't go around mentioning them all in lead sections of actors/actresses who have been in very high profile relationships. Furthermore, the relationship has impact on NFL as well and the Chiefs, do we go around mentioning her in the lead of their articles too? Meryam90 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The age of the relationship is irrelevant. The relationship itself is not the purpose of the comment. Don't get into what-about-isms on this. We aren't talking about other pages. We're talking about Travis Kelce not other pages. What other pages do and don't do does not matter here unless the comment was a policy violation, which it isn't. The comment is for the pop culture phenomenon that is the coverage of their relationship. It blows my mind you are so fiercely defending excluding something you appear to be in the minority on.--Rockchalk717 08:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• I know I commented above that the relationship shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, but if it does stay the lead should probably mention more than just widespread media coverage. Jessintime (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  What else do you think should be mentioned? Personally, I'm leaning towards being in favor of a brief mention at the end of the lead. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Again: the significance is not simply cultural, but also financial. As above, I suggest the intro sentence read: "Kelce's relationship with singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, begun in 2023, has drawn massive media coverage and stimulated viewership and revenue for his team and its league." PRRfan (talk) 1:37 pm, 16 February 2024, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)Reply

  PRRfan (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with the mention of the financial impact in addition to cultural impact. It makes it more clear the comment isn't simply just referencing their relationship, that's for the personal life section. Because yes, as Meryam90 has stated, just the relationship by itself isn't worthy of a mention in the lede (not necessarily because of the length of it), but everything that happened after they began dating definitely is.--Rockchalk717 18:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest something along the lines of the boost in ratings the NFL received as a result of the relationship, rather than just the media attention paid to it. Jessintime (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! Which is why "stimulated viewership...for his team and its league" is part of the addition under discussion. PRRfan (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. It meets everything I'm personally looking for it to say and seems everyone except Meryam90 feels the same.--Rockchalk717 20:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I hardly have time from real life to check this and it honestly slips my mind, but my argument about being in the lead is not the fact that I don't think the relationship is impactful on his life/career/NLF. The issue is in the need to mention it in the lead. So if they break up do we need to delete it then? He's not the first or last athlete to engage in a relationship with a pop singer. It doesn't mean it warrant a place in the lead seeing as he is primarily AN ATHLETE and this wikipedia page is not a tabloid. If they were married then it's more than welcome to add it but we're just adding to the tabloid vulture culture by making wikipedia page a place for entertainment gossip and taking the focus away from his primary career to his personal life.

The vague mention of his personal life being a topic of media coverage without mentioning her by name is enough to elude to it, anyone who needs to read further can go to his personal life section and get the full scope and get all the details. But to take the decade career of arguably one of the greatest NFL players and add his relationship to a famous woman in his lead section as if it's as important as his career (where not even his sport related achievements are fully mentioned btw) is truly laughable. And the people saying that Brady’s marriage or Romo’s relationship to Jessica Simpson didn’t make as many headlines or wasn’t the focus of media counts clearly wasn’t an NFL fan in the last 2 decades. I zm sorry to say this, but most of your comments on this issue really suffer from recency bias or are letting tabloids and excessive media coverage cloud their objectivity. No matter how impactful this relationship is on his career it does NOT deserve to be mentioned explicitly in the lead section.

I want to see one of you try to add mention of their relationship to the lead section of HER page and see what happens...Meryam90 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Meryam90: Once again, other pages are irrelevant. Number two, this discussion is over and the clear consensus is to include it. I mean this in the most polite way possible: please just let this go.--Rockchalk717 22:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion was not closed and formal consensus under wikipedia rules was not declared so with all fur respect, no consensus was reached and it’s still an open discussion unless you want us to involve a wiki admin and dig up all the Living person wikipedia rules so they can moderate this discussion since you all clearly cannot?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 12:30, March 1, 2024 (UTC)

One discussion on this ended on 30 December with a weak consensus (2-1, to judge by comments) to mention the relationship in the intro. You began another discussion on 16 February, which has produced a stronger consensus (4-1, to judge by comments) to do so. I'm sure we could set up a formal vote, but the prevailing sentiment at this point is pretty clear. PRRfan (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, it is clearly a consensus for inclusion. And yes it is closed. There were no comments on it for over a week and you tried to push your side further. This time I don't care how you take it. Let it go.--Rockchalk717 15:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2024

Please add a sentence that Kelce shoved Andy Reid during the Super Bowl. Consensus was fine with it above. Source: https://www.wsfa.com/2024/02/12/chiefs-coach-andy-reid-sheds-light-travis-kelce-sideline-shove/?outputType=amp 50.225.13.170 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added it. However, I have used a source that doesn't refer to it as a shove.--Rockchalk717 00:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

PLEASE REMOVE

During the game, following a turnover by the Chiefs when Kelce was not on the field, he was shown screaming at Chiefs' head coach Andy Reid demanding to remain on the field. During the incident, Kelce bumped Reid knocking Reid off balance, which drew criticism from several NFL analysts. Kelce said he regretted the actions and that they were unacceptable.[154]

RATIONALE

Unless you cite this type of information for ALL OTHER sports and football players you are just allowing your site to be used as and promote celebrity gossip topics. An Encyclopedia is factual and does not usually fall into pop culture traps and issues. The truth is Tom Brady and many NFL analysts and ex NFL players defended him as well but you are not noting this. To remain neutral its best not to caught up in the fray. 134.153.91.80 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is not a sufficiently uncontroversial edit for the "edit request" process. PianoDan (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@134.153.91.80: Your rationale doesn't make sense. Number 1, it is cited. Second, the comment isn't celebrity gossip. Next, I saw a few players that also criticized him. Finally, a consensus was reached for inclusion on this already.--Rockchalk717 22:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Philanthropy & activism section

This section needs work. It is disorganized (e.g., it starts with the 2015 creation of Kelce's foundation, then backs up to talk about his 2014 award, then lurches forward to 2020, then heads back to 2018, etc., etc. And why does "Noted for being generous with his time and resources" appear only in the middle of a paragraph in the middle of the section?). The prose is full of typos (e.g., "launched an initiate"), style errors (e.g., "2 years later..."), and needless words (e.g., "directly impacting and aiding all 450 student-athletes"). So I have been bold in two attempts to bring it up to snuff. First, I cleaned up the style, typos, and wordiness and reorganized it chronologically in two edits. These were summarily reverted by Meryam90 (Edit summary: "why butcher this section this way? it was cohesive and had all well researched information with sources to go and cut it up to small paragraphs adds absolutely nothing it takes away from to???").

OK, I thought, I did make a lot of changes in just a few edits. So for my second try, I changed one or two sentences at a time, with edit summaries to allow any particular edit to be challenged or improved upon. I also tried a new organizing scheme: Intro and awards->Ohio-based efforts->KC-based efforts->Miscellaneous efforts. Each had a topic sentence, as most well-constructed paragraphs do; facts were presented thematically and then chronologically. The result? Another summary reversion by @Meryam90 (edit summary: "There is no mosindesting ecvept yours here. He works PRIMARLY through his foundation (ehnce why the focus is on it FIRST) the everything unrelated to his foundation has been put second and then activism outside of that last. you seem to not have a grip on how his charity work is done and when why you you botching this section. please leave the order of it as it is and make the appropriate edits according to that. or YOU take it to the talk page before..")

I'm certainly open to a different organizing scheme; there could be, say, a paragraph about Kelce's foundation and its works. But the article currently doesn't even assert that he "works PRIMARLY through his foundation", much less present citations to prove it; moreover, the bulk of the examples of his philanthropy appear to be unrelated to the foundation. @Meryam90, I'm happy to work with you to improve this section that so desperately needs it. But in the face of bulk reversions that have restored reams of typos and poor prose, I confess I'm a bit at a loss here. PRRfan (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don’t have the proper time to write a longer reply right now. But every argument you gave speaks to the fact that you didn’t take the time to read the articles provided in resources. When the work is related to the foundation itself, it’s clearly stated in the source and when it’s something he has done independently of his foundation, it’s also mentioned in the appropriate sources.

If you have gone back to the original edits, I wrote that whole section on my own. Why? Because I am informed enough on his philosophy and what he does around KC with his charity work as a long time Chiefs fan and I knew what/where to research to find all the reliable sources. I reverted your edits because they were adding things that were false and making conclusions that don’t exist. I said in my rv comment: He works primarily in KC not in Ohio, there are only specific instances where his charity work extended to his hometown (despite his foundation being set up in Ohio). That’s why I insist on his foundation being highlighted FIRST. It’s not necessary to highlight that he works primarily with his foundation because EVERY athlete who has a foundation does that. It’s common knowledge and it would actually be unhelpful and not needed at all to “state the obvious” And I also understand your need to make it chronological but it’s actually not a pressing issue when the sections are set up by order of Work with the foundation (the primary focus of his philosophy work)-> work outside of the foundation (mostly individual or pre-foundation-> his limited activism work (that really doesn’t warrant a section for such a small paragraph).

Also some of your edits completely took out major infos in some section’s paragraphs for absolutely no reason and with comments such as “needless”. By whose standards were those informations deemed “needless” and under what wiki policy/rule?

I already said in my rv comment that I am more than welcome to collaborate on the section but the way you cut/trimmed it and completely missed major points in it was unfortunate and I couldn’t just let it go on. It’s not me being overprotective over things I added, it’s me being insistent on the integrity and cohesiveness of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 08:23, February 28, 2024 (UTC)

You're obviously very passionate about Kelce's philanthropy and have done a lot of work to compile information about it. I will be pleased to work with you to help the words in the article say what you think they say. You want to show that Kelce is outstanding in his charity work? Effective arguments usually move from general to specific: a general statement of a thesis, followed by specific evidence to back it up. If we start with "Kelce made a foundation in 2015" (particularly if we then say, "He won an award in 2014"), we're not making a particularly effective argument. Instead, a good argument might start: "Noted for being generous with his time and resources, Kelce has received several awards for his philanthropic efforts." That's a general statement that tells the reader the theme of the next three paragraphs, and prepares to back that up with the powerful evidence that he has won awards not just for any individual act, but for many of them. Then--again, working from general to specific--the next graf can be about a leading aspect of that philanthropy: his foundation. "Since 2015, Kelce has done much of his work through a foundation he established." Then we use specifics to back that up. Etc. Sound like a good way to start? PRRfan (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Meryam90: Let's move on. I propose to begin the section: "Noted for being generous with his time and resources, Kelce has received several awards for his philanthropic efforts. He received the Chiefs' Ed Block Courage Award in 2014. In 2020, the Chiefs nominated him for the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award. That same year, fans voted him the winner of the NFL's Charity Challenge Award.:" Sound good? PRRfan (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving ahead with topic sentence for section. PRRfan (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also fixed several style, grammar, and typographical errors. PRRfan (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Removing archive links

Hi, @Rockchalk717. I can see the argument for removing duplicate citations, but why remove archive links? Link rot is real, says someone who has gotten burned by it over the years and is now somewhat obsessed with archiving referenced pages. PRRfan (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@PRRfan: Multiple reasons. Providing an archive link to dead link makes sense. But having every source with an archive link is flat unnecessary, because not every link goes dead (several of these where for Pro Football Reference which I have literally never seen have a link go dead). Also, it can be quite difficult (especially for areas with a multitude of citations) to find where a citation ends to add something after it. That's why I left archives in the career and early life sections because those are less frequently edited and removed them from everywhere else.--Rockchalk717 17:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You're certainly right that archive links add a ton of text to each citation. And I see your logic for which ones you've cut and left. But "not every link goes dead" is only true until it's not, and it entails some risk that we could hedge against with archive links. Still, I'm not particularly worried that information about Travis Kelce is going to disappear before his career winds down and this page becomes less frequently edited. So okay, and thanks for explaining your reasoning. PRRfan (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@PRRfan: No problem, thanks for hearing me out understanding.--Rockchalk717 18:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)