Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 14

Flight Tracking "Public"
Hey @Ronherry! I'm not sure why you think the claim that flight data is public is "improper synthesis". The first article from Rolling Stone, in the body, not quoting Sweeney, says "Taylor Swift’s lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to a college student who uses public flight data to track private jet usage, suggesting his social media accounts were aiding Swift’s stalkers and threatening her safety." The second, from BBC, says "Jack Sweeney uses publicly available data to track the take-offs and landings of planes belonging to the wealthy and posts them one day later." These are reliable sources, stating that the data is public. Please, explain why you feel it shouldn't be included? It seems rather POV to not include it. glman (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not Ronherry, but I agree that calling the data "public" here is a glaring overstatement. If it was so public and so available, then Sweeney would not be drawn to collate it and post it. He's posting the flight info because the public does not generally know how to process the data. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet - Two reliable sources plainly call it public. Do we have sourcing to indicate it is not private? glman (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. The nature of the data, whether it is actually covered by public information laws, is to be determined by a court of law, not Wikipedia.  is false, because the sources are calling the FAA data public, not Sweeney's data. Sweeney's data (a secondary data) is processed from the FAA data (the primary data source). Sweeney's argument is that the FAA data is public and that makes his data public domain too! You're literally pushing Sweeney's POV as the fact of the dispute when that's not the case.  ℛonherry  ☘  11:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The nature of FAA data that is public is public data. Anyone could do it. "But in the United States, aircraft data is legally available for real-time tracking, something experts say is critical for safety and efficiency. Websites that track commercial flights use and publish it to provide consumer insights like on-time records, but the same data can be scooped up by virtually anyone looking to follow private planes with celebrities and other public figures, too." - from cited USA today article added to this article. If you want to edit it and clarify that the data is synthesized from publicly avaliable data, I think that is a bit nitpicky but fair, but to claim that the data is not public is POV pushing for Ms. Swift. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And? The USA Today quote you cited here does not state Sweeney's data is public data. You're only assuming that.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "a college student who uses flight data" (Rolling Stone) and "Sweeney uses publicly available data" (BBC). None of these sentences say Sweeney's data IS public data, they only say he USES them. FAA data IS public data indeed, and he USED them for his posts. None of these sentences from the reliable sources you cited state that the data published by Sweeney across his social media channels are public.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Those sentences clearly state the data is public. Seems like a major stretch to argue that "Ronherry uses public data" is not saying the data is public. I hear your opposition though. glman (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a reliable source that says it more plainly for you - . "The information he shares is based on publicly available data" and "It includes data pieced together from a few different sources of publicly available information". I think it's due to include the sentence, perhaps tweaked from the original. Instead of "the data is public" we can use a more nuanced description of the data that reflects the truth: Sweeney uses a synthesis of public data. Not including this sourced info is not NPOV and is clearly preferring Swift's POV. glman (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, his data is "based" on public data. "It includes data pieced together from a few different sources of publicly available information", exactly, so the source never claims his data is public but that his sources are public. My point is, if you're going to include this factoid, then it should be simply "Sweeney used a synthesis of public data, such as FAA", with proper attribution and free of sensationalist and grandstanding words like "despite" and "although", otherwise do not include it at all; it's like you're making Wikipedia argue for Sweeney. My suggestion would be  ℛonherry  ☘  16:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is good with me. I only have an issue with removing this info entirely; as it currently stands the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, favoring Swift's POV. I do not have issues with your proposed text, @LegalSmeagolian thoughts? glman (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see how it is "favoring" Swift's POV considering the sentence structure is strongly neutral: . There are no phrases/clauses in Wikipedia's voice that favors either of them.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I meant not including the public side at all. Apologies for the misunderstanding. glman (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the way it is currently phrased in the article is fine - what glman is saying is that not including any mention on how Sweenys data is based on easily accessible public information favors the swift pov, which is how it stands without your proposed language. You are welcome to use your proposed language, I don't object to it, I just think the current prose in the article conveys the same information in a briefer method. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. As neither glman nor you object to the sentence structure I proposed above, I'll implement it. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me explain this to you with a simple analogy:
 * The FAA publishes the following thing: 2+2
 * Sweeney then does the calculation: 2+2=4 and posts it.
 * The data is the same it is just presented differently. It is public data and we should state as such. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is literally original research lol. There are no reliable sources supporting your theory. There are no sources that explicitly state Sweeney's data is publicly data.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not original research. As per my comment, where I include an additional source, these sources explicitly say his data is, at the very minimum, based on public data. glman (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad we agree that, to quote you, "his data is [...] based on public data". Your previous claims were that his data "is public data". Inspired by LegalSmeagolian's mathematical analogy, if the FAA data is variable A, Sweeney's data is variable B, and being public data is variable C, your claim is "A = C, therefore B = C", while the sources says "A = C and B is a function of A" but never state "A is C, B is a function of A, therefore B = C". Therefore, simply, any claim that Sweeney's data "is" public data is original research, as it is not supported by any reliable sources, or at the minimum, not explicitly stated by any reliable source.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense. This borders on the absurd. Ultranuevo (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Though I haven't commented previously, I have been "tracking" this discussion since it started. I agree with the wording inserted in this change for the reasons others have identified above. Jessintime (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Years active
Could someone clarify how her career started in 2003 is listed in the infobox, even though her first album wasn't released until 2006? As an amateur editor, I am interested in understanding this discrepancy. Thank you. Newpicarchive (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Per the article history section, she began recording music in 2003, thus she was active beginning that year. glman (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence paragraph
Debate over best lead sentence paragraph, feel free to add options below: Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Her reinventive artistry, distinctive songwriting and entrepreneurship have been widely publicized and influential. (as is)
 * Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Her reinventive artistry, distinctive songwriting and entrepreneurship have been widely publicized and influential to culture and politics.
 * Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Known for her reinventive artistry, distinctive songwriting, entrepreneurship, and widely publicized personal life, Swift is a prominent cultural and political influence, with a vast fanbase.
 * They all contain puffery with words like "distinctive", and some of the piped links here are too Easter egg-y (e.g. "influential"). This version is fine and fully complies with the neutral point of view policy while properly conveying her influence. FrB.TG (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How about this: Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. A subject of widespread public interest with a vast fanbase, she has influenced the music industry, popular culture and politics through her artistry, songwriting, entrepreneurship, and advocacy. I believe it sounds better. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does sound better. FrB.TG (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"Draft:Taylor Swift" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Taylor_Swift&redirect=no Draft:Taylor Swift] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding re-releases to the lead
Should this be discussed in the lead? They are complete re-recordings and include new music, so should they be considered additional albums and given mention in the lead? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think saying that at the start is unnecessary because it's already mentioned in the history heading. But I'll let other more experienced editors than me to make that decision Tonkarooson (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The fact that she re-recorded four albums IS in the lead section, and MUST remain in the lead section. The fact is very widely discussed in the media, and is critically important to her career arc. Listing the four albums is much less important for the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Restructuring of the life and career section
Following the detailed structure of The Beatles' Wikipedia page, I think we can improve Swift's life and career section by adopting a similar "over-sectioning" approach. I was thinking of the following template:

1989–2000: Early life

2001–2013: Country period
 * Career beginnings and relocation to Tennessee
 * Breakthrough with debut album and Fearless
 * Experimentations with Speak Now and Red

2014–2019: Shift to pop and industry battles
 * First pop album with 1989
 * Media scrutiny and Reputation
 * Masters dispute and Lover

2020–present: Swiftmania
 * Pandemic ventures with Folklore and Evermore
 * Re-recordings process and Midnights
 * The Eras Tour and The Tortured Poets Department

Monsterofain (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I really like your suggestion for grouping together the smaller segments of her career, and agree that a little reorganization would be beneficial—in particular, the way Lover/the masters dispute and Folklore/Evermore are currently lumped into a single section seems odd and would be easy to split into two parts. However, I think that having the shorter timeframes leading the headers is actually really helpful for quickly finding what someone is looking for, so imo it’s worth keeping that header style.
 * I would suggest the following—a little less drastic and keeping the existing style of section headers but incorporating your larger categories and slightly reorganizing 2018-present:
 * 1989–2000: Early life
 * 2001–2013: Country period
 * 2004-2008: Career beginnings and first album
 * 2008-2010: Fearless
 * 2010-2014: Speak Now and Red
 * 2014–2019: Shift to pop and industry battles
 * 2014-2018: 1989 and Reputation
 * 2018-2020: Lover and UMG Masters Dispute
 * 2020-present: Swiftmania
 * 2020: Folklore and Evermore
 * 2021-2023: Re-recordings and Midnights
 * 2023-present: Eras Tour and The Tortured Poets Department
 * —Trellbailey (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse my, but why the wikipedia page of Taylor Swift isn't Extended Protected unlike some other artists' page on Wikipedia? Anonymous Unregistered Guy (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Portrait Update
Can we replace the current image (in which Swift's head is tilted) by another image. Redmyname31 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * What does "enhanced" mean? glman (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Upscaled version Redmyname31 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter AND Musician
I observed that in the infobox about occupations list, it states that she is a Singer-Songwriter and a Musician. Are these two roles not synonymous? Additionally, I have noticed that it is uncommon for Singer-Songwriters and Musicians to be listed separately on the encyclopedia pages of her colleagues, as they are typically referred to simply as Singer-Songwriters. ShakiraFandom (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal life missing
Why is this section missing? What time it is (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)