Jump to content

Talk:Alicia Keys/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Notable roles in lead

See the RfC close below.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Lawrencekhoo:, stop inappropriately removing/reverting notable roles per reliable sources of the artist. It is unconstructive & progressively disruptive, and I see you are doing this in multiple articles; moreover, I see you've been warned on your talk about repeated reverts. You clearly have not read the article and do not have knowledge of the artist. The artist is notable for, equally and primarily, these roles - singer-songwriter, pianist, music producer, philanthropist - per reliable sources. 'Actress' could be removed as the only role that is not as prominent, but all of the aforementioned belong there. Your edit is against WP:VERIFY (WP policy) and you are edit warring in the process. WP:V: “[WP] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors”. If you don't stop incorrectly reverting in violation of policy, especially without discussion, it will be taken to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. Lapadite (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:V is not justification for inclusion. Please read WP:BLPLEAD, specifically, it states: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. ... avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph" and "In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)." There are multiple reasons why "pianist, music producer, philanthropist, and actress" should not be in the lead sentence. Don't include in the lead sentence unless you can show the person commonly is referred to as such in WP:RS, the role is discussed elsewhere in the lead, and the role is significantly discussed in the body (which would be at least a fair sized section). LK (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you read? - "[these are] notable roles per reliable sources of the artist ... You clearly have not read the article and do not have knowledge of the artist. The artist is notable for, equally and primarily, these roles - singer-songwriter, pianist, music producer, philanthropist - per reliable sources ... Your edit is against WP:VERIFY (WP policy) and you are edit warring in the process. WP:V: “[WP] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors”.. WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". MOS:BIO: "The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played ... The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph". Once again, please read: the artist is prominently notable for the aforementioned roles per reliable sources, and you would know that if you actually read them or even read the article, and not just drive-by edited (as you've done with multiple articles on this). You are disruptively editing and reverting against WP policies, and MOS guideline. Lapadite (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you read the guideline WP:BLPLEAD? It clear states The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources and should not be included in the lead paragraph if ... the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead. LK (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI, the New York Times refers to her as "35-year-old pop star"[1], Variety as "renowned singer-songwriter"[2], Washington Post as "Grammy-blessed soul singer"[3] and Biography.com as "multiple Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter"[4]. Thus, "award winning singer" or "award winning singer-songwriter" appears to be how we refer to her, as this is consistent with the way that WP:RS commonly refer to her. LK (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC

There is a clear consensus for "B: Alicia Augello Cook (born January 25, 1981), known professionally as Alicia Keys, is an American singer-songwriter."

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have expanding the closing rationale after a request on my talk page.

Of the 12 people who commented in the RfC, 11 people found option B acceptable and one did not. RfC participants determined that option B complies with WP:BLPLEAD and is due weight. RfC participants concluded that option A does not comply with WP:BLPLEAD and is undue weight.

An RfC participant quoted WP:BLPLEAD, which says to exclude from the lead paragraph "activities that are not integral to the person's notability". There is a clear consensus that singing-songwriting ("singer-songwriter") is an activity integral to Alicia Keys' notability. There is a clear consensus that philanthropy ("philanthropist") and acting ("actress") are not activities integral to Alicia Keys' notability. There is disagreement about whether piano playing ("pianist") and music producing ("music producer") are activities integral to Alicia Keys' notability.

Snow Rise (talk · contribs) recommended as a compromise a lead sentence that included "pianist" and "music producer" and omitted "philanthropist" and "actress": "Alicia Augello Cook (born January 25, 1981), known professionally as Alicia Keys, is an American singer-songwriter, pianist, and music producer."

Dbrote and L3X1 supported Snow Rise's compromise proposal. There is no consensus for the compromise proposal because few editors explicitly discussed it. There is no prejudice against opening a new discussion or RfC about whether this compromise proposal is acceptable.

Cunard (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is an ongoing disagreement about how Alicia Keys should be referred to in the lead sentence. Which of the following is appropriate?

  • A : Alicia Augello Cook (born January 25, 1981), known professionally as Alicia Keys, is an American singer-songwriter, pianist, music producer, philanthropist, and actress.
  • B : Alicia Augello Cook (born January 25, 1981), known professionally as Alicia Keys, is an American singer-songwriter.
  • C : Other (please specify).

The pertinent guideline is WP:BLPLEAD. --LK (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Correction: No, it is not. As shown with numerous examples of RS's below (including the major/mainstream publications), she became notable for and is notable for being a singer-songwriter, pianist/musician, producer (music career), and her philanthropic/activism/humanitarian work. I suggest taking a look at cited sources, or familiarizing with the breadth of written content on the artist since her start in the industry, over Googling & cherry picking specific terms to push a POV. See edit "21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" below in reply to SPECIFICO. Lapadite (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A, sans "actress" - The prominent roles (singer-songwriter, pianist, music producer, philanthropist/activist/humanitarian [which ever suits best]) inherent/integral to the artist's notability, per reliable sources; as sourced in body of article (#Artistry, #Career, #Philanthropy, #Influence sections) and supported by countless more sources, a few more of which are linked below. The aforementioned music-career roles are inseparable from and wholly comprise the artist's notability in music since the start of her career, per reliable sources; she's been noted for being a singer-songwriter, pianist/musician, and producer. Another editor has also reinstated them. Not all of the artist's roles as discussed by reliable sources (including "...actress, author, film producer...") are being included or suggested, as the rest would be excessive and are not integral to her notability. Not only are the integral roles widely noted by reliable sources, Keys has also received awards and nominations for them (which also contributes to their notability). With respect to music production, in addition to being noted for producing/co-producing her own work, she also owns a production company, as noted in article. This is a pointless/waste of editors' time RfC ... read the article, read multiple sources, read about the artist. Lapadite (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC). Also to note: WP:CON "does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote... consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". WP:CONLIMITED "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale..." - as it pertains to determining the legitimacy of content widely supported by RS's per one's own personal opinions instead of RS's attributions, consequently disregarding WP PAG's. Lapadite (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research."
WP:V: "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. ... Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content"
Quoting of other WP Policies & Guidelines that also apply, i.e. WP:NPV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, MOS:LEAD, MOS:BLPLEAD
- WP:NPV: "Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia...It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies...These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. ...This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

- WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" - MOS:LEAD: "The lead...should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points...The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

- MOS:BLPLEAD: "4. The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; 5. Why the person is notable. ... The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph." --Lapadite (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As sourced in the article, and documented by reliable sources over the years, the artist is widely regarded as and gained critical attention for being: a singer-songwriter; a classically-trained pianist who incorporates the instrument in most of her music and performances; a music producer who since teenagehood has produced/co-produced her work, and has also later produced for other artists; a philanthropist/activist who launched and actively serves as ambassador for a renowned HIV/AIDS organization, among other philanthropic and activism projects, many of which involve major figures in the entertainment industry and other sectors, and all of which are noted by reliable sources. For those who don't read the sourced content or read about the artist before opining on what the subject is and isn't the notable for, which is determined by reliable sources per WP policy - some of the plethora of reliable sources that have noted the prominent roles crucial to the notability of the artist (apart from 'singer-songwriter'):
Pianist/musician/instrumentalist → “studied classical composition and sometimes plays a bit of Beethoven in concert, emerged as a singer-songwriter-instrumentalist-producer”, “singer-pianist...depth as a songwriter, singer and pianist”, "pianist", “pianist”, “writer, arranger... musical prodigy who began playing at age five”, "few adjectival phrases are as off-putting as "classically trained," especially when it's used repeatedly in the course of a five-year PR buildup for a teen prodigy.", "musician/producer...one of the most respected musicians of today", ”One of the most versatile musicians of her generation, the New York-born, piano-playing”, "brings the influence of jazz greats like Fats Waller to her piano playing", "classically trained pianist", "precocious Keys, a classically trained pianist", "multitalented composer, lyricist, musician", "singer, songwriter, producer, pianist, actress, and activist", "pianist", “At 7, Ms. Keys started classical piano lessons; at 14, when her classical teacher said he had nothing left to teach her", "Pianist … Musician … writes and produces her own music”, "pianist", "instrumentalist", "pianist...has thrived by touching fans with her piano mastery", “hip-hop swagger, an old-school soul sound and older school (as in Chopin) piano chops”, "pianist", "musician", "pianist", "musician", "musician", "musician", “talent as both a musician...studying classical piano at seven years old... Becoming a musician was coded in her DNA...Not only was she mean on the ivories, but she showed true musicianship, writing and performing her material”, "musician", "musician", "musician", "musician", [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], pg 23, [20], [21], [22], [23], pg 22, pg 36, [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]
Producer → Honored by The Recording Academy’s Producers & Engineers. - "singer/songwriter/musician/producer Alicia Keys...Keys also owns The Oven Studios, which is often used by a variety of the most prestigious recording artists.", "an accomplished singer, songwriter, and music producer", writer, arranger and producer, "she produces her own stuff”, "producer", “What's doubly impressive is that Keys produced these tracks herself … which is why she's right to insist on doing it herself”, “writes and produces her own music”, [30], "producer", "seasoned singer-songwriter/producer", "producer", "took on the weight of writing and producing herself. … her production company", "emerged as a singer-songwriter-instrumentalist-producer", [31], [32], [33], [34], pg 23, [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], pg 22, pg 36, pg 18, [41]
Philanthropist/activist/humanitarian → "a powerful force in philanthropy and activism", "a powerful force in the world of philanthropy and in the global fight against HIV and AIDS … A devoted and influential philanthropist", "a keen philanthropist", "activist", "devoted work as an AIDS activist and philanthropist...has built an unparalleled repertoire of hits and philanthropic accomplishments”, "Celebrated global music artist and activist...has used her career and platform as a 15-time Grammy award-winning artist to inspire and campaign for change...has increasingly interwoven her activism with her art. Her extensive philanthropic work...”, "artists known for their charity work", "philanthropist", "activist", "activist", "activist", "activist", "activist", "activist", "philanthropist", "In addition to being a prolific artist, Alicia Keys is also a devoted AIDS activist and philanthropist", "activist", "has always combined activism with her art”, "humanitarian...is known for her philanthropic work”, "philanthropist", "committed role as an intersectional activist", "has mixed activism with art, advocating for social justice issues", "has always used her voice for the greater good, as an ambassador for the non-profit organization Keep A Child Alive", "philanthropist", "activist", "maintains a lifestyle of social activism...She continues to accumulate recognition and awards with her multifaceted talents and her philanthropic endeavors”, [https://www.keyboardmag.com/artists/alicia-keys-reaches-for-new-sounds-and-finds-the-element-of-freedom, [42], [43], pg 58, pg 4
  • Dismissing the noted roles that are the main causes of the notability of the subject against the writing of numerous reliable sources throughout the artist' career is going against policy & principles of PAG, the core of WP. Moreover, what may apply to or suit one article subject or another doesn't automatically apply/transfer to other article subjects. Some artists, such as this one (and a number of others, e.g., Jack White, John Mayer, Ed Sheeran, Billy Corgan, Amy Lee, Mary J. Blige, Nina Simone, Fiona Apple, Lauryn Hill, Norah Jones, Reba McEntire, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, etc), are notable for several roles as chronicled by reliable sources. This subject's career was not founded on & is not widely regarded for only singing or singing and songwriting; per the aggregate of sources, it was grounded in and became notable and celebrated for a "multi-faceted" nature, the core of her notability being: singing, songwriting, musicianship (pianist), producing, and her philanthropic/activism/humanitarian work. Lapadite (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It's an impressive wall of text, no doubt. And I'm not saying there is absolutely nothing to your argument. But I think you perhaps have lost sight of how WP:WEIGHT is meant to function in cases like these; it is a measure of relative influence amongst the collective body of sources on a topic, not meeting a certain threshold of X number of sources. Yes, that's a lot of links, but can you begin to fathom how many sources exist out there for any massively multi-platinum artist with a career of two and a half decades? You could scroll this talk page for two days if we included them all here. With respect to recording artists, the "philanthropy" bit is a particularly complicated analysis, for a variety of reasons. At some point, virtually every musician who has hit a certain level of sales begins to develop a charitable/social engagement image, either because A) they are genuinely socially conscious and always have been, but now entertainment press begin to obsess over every little thing they do, B) because its great for their image and publicity, and/or C) they just have so much discretionary income and influence that they can't give it away fast enough. But it doesn't change the basic weight of what sources regard the subject for being notable for, because this minutia is a drop of water in the ocean of press that they receive.
There are of course exceptions; some artists are known almost as much for their charity work as for their music, but I gotta tell you: your list above notwithstanding, I'm not sold that this is the case here, and that's mostly because of the "philanthropy" section I see in the article right now, which is highly suggestive of some non-neutral editing at work. There are nine paragraphs (nine!) in that section, much of it patched together from various random reference to a gala she once sang a song at, or a social campaign that she donated her image to. Most of the references do not really touch upon "philanthropy" as it is usually understood (donation of resources to charitable causes to keep them funded and operating) but rather on activism (speaking up publicly for issues she feels passionately about). And I don't want to oversell my position here; I very much do believe that Keys is engaged in social activism even to a degree that is substantially beyond that of your average musical icon. But is it, as a matter of weight, one of her primary claims to notability, such that it doesn't just have to appear in the lead, but the lead sentence? I just don't think see it in the sources I've reviewed generally, and I don't think your list makes as much of a splash as you feel it does, when you zoom out and look at the corpus of sources at large.
I could be wrong, of course, and you do make a decent case, but I can tell you this much: we could easily create a nine-paragraph section of so-called "philanthropy" for any of a thousand other musical acts utilizing sources similar to those in question here and I wouldn't consider it to be a fair reflection of the sources or the artists' notability or feel that it qualified them for that title in the lead sentence. I do believe that "pianist" or "musician" could be a different story entirely; her skill with the piano is a major part of her music and image, afterall. But by trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the first sentence, you are driving editors away from your position who may have endorsed a more limited expansion of said content. Isn't there a compromise that could be floated here? Adding "pianist" to the lead sentence maybe and then a quick reference to her charitable/activist work towards the end of the lead, maybe? Snow let's rap 05:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I won't focus on everything there that is original research (e.g, personal opinion on whether artist is or isn't notable for this or that, what the motivation is for artists to be involved in this or that, etc) - anything that doesn't pertain to the foundation of WP and WP policies - what reliable sources determine to be notable and noteworthy, not editor' personal dispositions, bias or cynicism, picking and choosing. [Nor will I reflect on your tone, condescension and backhanded comments]. So again, if one were citing all the artist's roles (which are all discussed by reliable resources), one would have included or be suggesting other roles such as "actress, author [NYT best selling], film producer" etc, which one isn't. There goes that argument. It is contained to the actual roles reliable sources determine integral to the artist's notability - singer-songwriter, pianist, producer, philanthropist - and inseparable from each other (as a number of sources have also stated). The aggregate of reliable sources consider her widely-reported, longstanding philanthropy/activism - which goes beyond playing songs at some events or donating money to charity, if one reads about the artist - to be integral to her notability. She is called a philanthropist and/or activist by numerous sources. She has received honors for it. That fact remains, regardless of how much personal interpretation we do of the artist, the worthiness of their notable roles, their motivations for engaging in something, or the misusing "WP:WEIGHT" when the whole of reliable sources writing about these inseparable roles as inherently notable invalidates that misleading claim. Claim of WP:WEIGHT against RS's notable roles is funny, as: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" - it's exactly being contradicted while arguing for personal views over the "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources".
This article is a work in progress (like most WP articles), and it doesn't remotely have even half of the information on the subject it should. Whether or not the philanthropy section is remotely up to par is irrelevant to the verifiability of this content, as shown (and for which plenty more of RS's can be linked), directly supported by abundance of reliable sources over the years. The fact is that multitude of reliable sources directly consider the subject's philanthropy/activism to be integral to her. She has received a number of honors for her philanthropic work/activism, one of the most recent ones being: Amnesty International - "Celebrated global music artist and activist Alicia Keys and the inspirational movement of Indigenous Peoples fighting for their rights in Canada have been honoured with Amnesty International’s Ambassador of Conscience Award for 2017, the human rights organization announced today." Likewise, with producer - apart from numerous reliable sources discussing the her notability as a self-producing artist, she has also received awards, including a non-competitive honor from The Recording Academy's Producers & Engineers [44]. It's amazing reliable sources is still needing to be stressed here. It speaks for itself. And reliable sources speaks for themselves. WP's PAG determine that content, in lead and body, including notability and notable roles of artists, should be based on reliable sources, not the views of editors. Your 'compromise' argument is misleading; Once again, not all of the artists' roles were included or are being suggested for inclusion in the lead (only the few inherently notable), and reliables sources have long determined the inseparable roles that are being scrutinized here (songwriter, pianist, producer, philanthropist) are wholly integral to the artist; 'compromise' as you put it, is here what is already being done, disregarding what reliables sources state, and cherry picking which of those notable roles we prefer and don't prefer, again against WP PAG. WP content reflects writing of reliable sources, here what reliable sources determine is integral to artist's notability, as per PAG, not whether or not editors like something. Per reliable sources, the artist/person isn't the artist/person without the sum of her songwriting, musicianship, and producing (all three interwoven into artistry, and for which she became known and celebrated), as well as her widely-regarded and honored philanthropy and activism. I realize for some reason there quickly came an urge here to dismiss all this that has been sourced for a while, dismiss all the aforementioned & linked WP PAG, and dismiss all the reliable sources contradicting the personal view claims here, even after more sources are provided (and tons more are available); but here's what it actually objectively comes down to: Editor's view vs numerous reliable sources determining verifiable content - there's your real 'weight' issue. Lapadite (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Honestly, I was just trying to help you out, Lapadite. Because I thought your editorial position was not entirely without merit and because you were clearly about to lose this !vote by a landslide, my inquiry (and all I did was inquire!) about possible reasonable middle ground solutions had no other purpose than to assist you in getting at least some decent portion of the changes you were driving for, rather than absolutely nothing. But have it your way; if it's more important to you to register your ire with the other editors here, you can instead use walls of text to rail against the supposed bias of everyone who disagrees with you on this issue (which is literally every last editor who has responded to this RfC, whether they were previously involved in the dispute or, like me, just responded to a notice), taking the original parties to ANI for merely disagreeing with you and burning down attempts to build bridges between you and your opposition by anyone who comes along later.
But given the fact that the !vote currently stands at 8:1, you might at least consider the possibility that your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is the one which is out of sync with community consensus and policy, not ours. Beyond that, even if you are certain that yours is the "correct"/more enlightened/appropriate editorial view here (and you can't be convinced otherwise), the pragmatic reality is that you still have a choice between A) having all of the content you want to add blocked as a consequence of the clear outcome of consensus, or B) moderating your approach and expectations just a little and maybe getting something. To be honest with you, because you are so far behind on this one (partly as a consequence of having very different views from the consensus and partly because of the way you have approached discussion here), I honestly didn't think you had much hope of moving the needle towards a compromise solution at this point, but (again, because I thought you were at least partially right on the underlying content issue), I was trying to give you a fighting chance to accomplish that. But if you would rather run your entire ship aground than accept anything less than 100% of your preferred version of the article, hey, that's your call... Snow let's rap 02:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Please, don't deflect or condescend and focus on the substantive, WP PAG- and RS-based rebuttal. What is without merit is all the original research commented, the personal opinions that are not remotely-based on what reliable sources have written - that is what is without merit; not all the clear cut evidence I've provided (as well as WP PAG's) which is disregarded over own personal opinion on the subject; to the point it seems agenda-driven on the subject, given plain disregard of the plethora of reliable sources that clearly contradict mere personal opinion declarations here & the number of other WP articles (including GAs & FAs) that also mention the notable multiple roles of artists and other celebrities in the lead opening. Also, in case you're not aware, WP:CON "does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote... consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". I restored your removal/separation of the discussion comments - which are integral to RfCs & consensus building - made in favor of polling/vote! (hence your focus on mere vote! numbers). Lapadite (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Lapadite77 - please don't edit your comments after people have responded to them as you have done several times in the above. 20:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes of course I am aware of both of those principles, why else would I use the community term !vote (note, not "vote!") except to notate the fact that we are talking about feedback that has to be filtered through policy, rather than a straight up and down vote? But if you genuinely think that consensus here is going to be set aside to validate your preferred version (which you alone amongst the respondents here endorse), I think you're just out of touch with reality on this, I have to tell you. Yes, in principle, a closer is potentially permitted to endorse a view that is not strictly the one supported by a simple majority, but this discretion is only to be invoked when editors have attempted to support something which is incontrovertibly against the plainest possible reading of a policy, such that the broader consensus of the community at large would, without question, be disregarded. Here we have two generally reasonable interpretations of a very narrow WP:WEIGHT issue as regards a lead statement, where one option is supported by a dozen editors and the other approach is supported by one. In other words, a matter of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on how the relevant policies relate to a particular issue here.
And no, that does not mean that anyone here is arguing that you have failed to achieve consensus because this is purely a numbers game; that's a pure strawman argument. You just seem to need to believe that because you can't contemplate even the possibility that you are the one who has misread policy, the weight of the sources, and/or community consensus on the matter. In other words, you refuse to consider that there may be a more probable explanation here to explain why you are a minority of one, other than your theory that a dozen (mostly very experienced) editors have all missed the ball on this; you may just (possibly, feasibly, within the realm of reality)...be wrong? Anyway, as I've said ad nauseum, you can, as an editor, be certain that you're right about a content matter and still recognize you are going to lose the consensus discussion and therefore attempt to gain support for something in the middle ground, rather than cutting off your nose to spite your face.
On a procedural note, why do you insist on using a non-standard format for the RfC, omitting a survey section so that people have to scroll through the massive walls of text of your comments/sourcing arguments in order to reach the perspectives of the majority of the other editors? It's not just an annoyance to anyone who wants to participate, it gives your opinions an outsized importance since (aside from my responses, which are clearly not convincing you of anything, and which I will cease delivering with this post) you are the only one making extended comments. That seems consistent with your insistence that you and you alone are the one who is making sense here, but seriously, I don't see a principled reason for enforcing this discussion-garbling format on everyone in order that your voluminous (some would say WP:TLDR) comments and my responses can retain primacy at the top of the thread. Anyway, as I said, I'm done. Whether you chose to believe it or not, my inquiry was meant to give you a leg up to getting towards a version of the lead that was part way to what you wanted, rather than nothing. But it's clear you're not interested in considering anything anywhere in the middle ground or settling for anything other than exactly your preferred version of the content, and I'm beginning to feel long-winded myself, so I think this discourse can serve no further purpose. Happy editing. Snow let's rap 08:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • B is the basis of her notability. We can't recite a long list of various things she has done. They can all be covered within the article text to reflect RS coverage of her. It actually diminishes her to recite all these other activities in a bloated sidecar alongside her core. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Correction: No, it is one of the interconnected roles (as noted and sourced above) that comprise the basis of her notability, per reliable sources. As shown with numerous examples of RS's above, she became notable for and is notable for being a singer-songwriter, pianist/musician, producer (music career), and her philanthropic/activism/humanitarian work. I suggest taking a look at cited reliable sources, and that one sticks to what reliable sources have written as opposed to personal opinion. Some examples on the aforementioned roles being the core of her notability: 1; Recording Academy (Grammys) “singer/songwriter/musician/producer Alicia Keys is also an accomplished actress, a New York Times best-selling author, and a powerful force in philanthropy and activism. ...have made her one of the most respected musicians of today...Keys also owns The Oven Studios, which is often used by a variety of the most prestigious recording artists.” 1b “Keys exemplifies versatility, making her mark in the music world as a singer/songwriter and producer, as well as an actress, author, activist, and philanthropist.” 2 "Singer, songwriter, AIDS activist, philanthropist...an accomplished singer, songwriter, and music producer...In addition to being a prolific artist, Alicia Keys is also a devoted AIDS activist and philanthropist". 3 ““writer, arranger and producer … musical prodigy who began playing at age five”. 4 "She can sing, she can write, she produces her own stuff”. 5 "Pianist … Musician … writes and produces her own music”. 6 “Singer/songwriter/producer... a powerful force in the world of philanthropy and in the global fight against HIV and AIDS … A devoted and influential philanthropist". 7 “singer, songwriter, pianist, record producer, and actor”. 8 "emerged as a singer-songwriter-instrumentalist-producer”. 9 "songwriter, producer, arranger and musician”. 10 “multi-instrumentalist, singer, songwriter and producer”. 11 “singer/songwriter/producer/musician”. 12 “writes and produces her own songs...an accomplished keyboardist...Keys as a musician". 13 “She composes, arranges, produces, sings, writes, collaborates”. 13b “a trained pianist who writes and produces for both herself and others...in short, she's a musician...”. 14 “the singer/songwriter/producer/musician”. 15 “her multiple talents as a singer, songwriter, musician, producer and arranger”. 16 “The accomplished pianist, singer, songwriter and producer”. 17 “singer-songwriter, musician, actress, and producer...This one-woman dynamo is also a best-selling author, an actress, and a tireless advocate for charitable causes.” 18 “Keys holds forth on the tasks she's well-known for: singer, songwriter, producer, AIDS advocate, charity czar...her roles as composer and pianist”. 19 “prodigious pianist, singer, songwriter, actress, humanitarian”. 20 “This embrace of humanitarian issues in her songwriting was expected. Her philanthropic work is an integral part of her personality and a core part of her routine.” 21 “Keys has always combined activism with her art.” 22 “Keys and Canada’s indigenous rights movement have been selected to receive top accolades for their human rights activism by Amnesty International…Keys has mixed activism with art, advocating for social justice issues”. 23 “Celebrated global music artist and activist...Keys has used her career and platform as a 15-time Grammy award-winning artist to inspire and campaign for change...has increasingly interwoven her activism with her art. Her extensive philanthropic work...” --Lapadite (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • B (Summoned by bot) As a matter of WP:WEIGHT and consistency with WP:BLPLEAD and its typical application. Some of the additional roles (particularly music producer and pianist) may be relevant enough for incidental discussion in the lead section, but shoe-horning all of them into the lead sentence would be undue, causing a false impression of the main causes of the subject's notability. That said, I would tend to find "singer-songwriter, pianist, and music producer" to be a reasonable compromise that would be an acceptable interpretation of the sources with regard to the subject's notability. Snow let's rap 05:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Sans "actress", they are not "additional" roles or "incidental". They are not undue, they are integral to the artist's notability, per reliable sources; noting these per RS's gives verifiable, accurate information to readers - disregarding RS's and removing such content per one's personal opinion, at best, gives a false impression to readers. Take a look at the many sources cited supporting the basis of her notability being a singer-songwriter, pianist/musician, producer, and her philanthropic/activism/humanitarian work. See edit "21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" above. --Lapadite (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not, which was demonstrated by multiple reliable sources. Take a look at them. See edit "21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" above. --Lapadite (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
B - "singer-songwriter" or "R&B singer" as seeming most common. A longer "R&B singer songwriter who is also a musician and actress" also starts into things that are derivative of her fame and success as a singer, so I think they should be later lines in the article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not, which was demonstrated by multiple reliable sources. Take a look at them. See edit "21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" above. --Lapadite (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • B - My comment won't quote policy, because I believe that's been covered completely here. But there is some confusion in my reading of Lapadite's description of Ms. Keys, where they refer to her as "the artist" and "an artist". They don't refer to her as "the philanthropist" or "a philanthropist". Now you may say "Of course! In a conversational setting, its just easier to say artist." So there is, in those instances, a time where brevity rules the day, where the shortest, most well known label is used. But not apparently when it comes to the first sentence of a Wikipedia article. There is no opening a bottle of wine and letting it breathe - you must chug it all down at once. The view is that the first sentence cannot wait to spell out in equal measure, all monikers of note, all in the same sentence. Ms. Keys can't be referred to as philanthropist in the 2nd sentence or - heaven forbid- the 3rd. That would bring indignation, and a failure to acknowledge Ms. Keys' true impact. The argument is that no one label should dominate over another - there should be label equality across the key labels that Ms. Keys is presently notable for. But philanthropy is not what Ms. Keys is most known for. As Snow said, a mountain of sources refer to her as a singer. I don't understand why the Wikipedia reader audience can't also come to know her in the first sentence as just a singer. There is in the opposite position a view that some labels are inferior to others, in particular, the label of singer (a recording artist, or just artist for short). I guess that moniker does not hold the same level of caché that philanthropist does. But Ms. Keys rose to prominence through her voice, not her wallet. That could change, over time. .spintendo⋅⋅) 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes they do refer to her as the aforementioned integral, intertwined roles - singer, songwriter, pianist/musician, producer, and as a philanthropist/activist/humanitarian. Take a look at the cited sources. And see edit "21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" above. --Lapadite (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Correction: No, she is not, which was demonstrated by multiple reliable sources. Take a look at them. And see edit "21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" above. --Lapadite (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • B as she is best known for her work as a singer-songwriter. This is the basis for her notability and is what belongs in that first sentence. That does other things is definitely worth noting in the lede but those things aren't (yet) what she is most known for. Ca2james (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Correction: No, it is not solely, and yes they are what she is known for per reliable sources, which was demonstrated above by multiple. Take a look at them. And see edit "21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" above. Please stick to RS's commentary not personal opinion. --Lapadite (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image

I'm wondering if her image should be replaced. The published image is from 2013, and Keys stopped wearing makeup in 2016, which changed her facial appearance considerably. She doesn't really look like the published image anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deane (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Please update primary photo of Alicia Keyes

It badly needs updating (or an add-in photo) to reflect her appearance since 2016. Since then she has spearheaded a movement encouraging women/teenagers to let their natural beauty just be itself; that includes foregoing earlier styles of heavy makeup, by living healthy, eating and sleeping well,getting exercise, etc. At any rate that attitude is a major part of her persona now, and her public appearance has thus radically evolved (and has been her only 'face' for several years now). As all those who have followed her occasionally in the recent years (e.g., in her regular TV appearances as one of the four primary coaches on 'The Voice' TV show, or merely as The Host on the Grammy Awards show this month) know, she is hardly recognizable as the same person still shown on her Wiki page.2601:19B:4501:2E24:2032:E254:776F:A699 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)M Clement2601:19B:4501:2E24:2032:E254:776F:A699 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). See current photos on YouTube, 'The Voice' TV, or Grammy Awards coverage in the NYT.

Lellow

I've seen the comment attached to this nickname in the infobox, but there is no source attached and the nickname is not referenced anywhere else in the article. I think either the context for this nickname should be brought into the article or it should be removed altogether. Considering the character has only "appeared" in one of Keys' songs and isn't an alter ego in the same way as Slim Shady or Ziggy Stardust, coupled with a lack of documentation about it, I would veer towards removing it. – PeeJay 12:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

minor talent, article is too long

This article should be severely trimmed - reeks of fan obsession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.107 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

What would you suggest be trimmed? Acalamari 22:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I've nothing against AK, but there's an awful lot of fancruft here. That isn't unusual with articles about pop singers, and even reality 'celebrities'. --Ef80 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alicia_Keys/Archive_3&oldid=1238600223"