Talk:Taylor Swift

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taylor Swift article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Taylor Swift. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Taylor Swift at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Taylor Swift is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 23, 2019.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 25, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed July 18, 2012 Good article nominee Listed August 16, 2014 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 7, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted August 6, 2016 Good article nominee Listed September 17, 2016 Peer review Reviewed October 31, 2016 Featured article candidate Promoted March 4, 2021 Peer review Reviewed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 23, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Taylor Swift (pictured) is the first act to have three albums with opening week sales of one million copies in the US? Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 13, 2017, and December 13, 2019. Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance). Taylor Swift Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Country Music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Country MusicTemplate:WikiProject Country MusicCountry Music articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Women in Music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as High-importance). Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on August 19, 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles Previous copyedits: /  This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on 12 December, 2015. This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on August 31, 2016.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Other talk page banners

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: James Steyn (August 27, 2009). "Wikipedia: Top 20 people, places, film and technology articles". The Daily Telegraph. Megan French (July 21, 2016). "Taylor Swift's Wikipedia Page Vandalized After Kim Kardashian, Kanye West Feud: See What the Trolls Did". Us Weekly. Nola Ojomu (July 20, 2016). "Taylor Swift's Wikipedia is vandalised as trolls rename her 'Slithering Snake Becky With The Good Lies'". The Sun. "When Ben Stokes became more popular than Taylor Swift". Cricket Times. August 28, 2019. "Taylor Swift lost to Ben Stokes in Wikipedia search battle". Hindustan Times. August 28, 2019. Ash Cant (December 7, 2023). "Wikipedia's top articles from 2023 reveal our dark curiosity". The New Daily. Retrieved December 11, 2023. Text and/or other creative content from this version of Taylor Swift in popular culture was copied or moved into Taylor Swift with this edit on 24 November 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. Track 5 (Taylor Swift) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 6 March 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Taylor Swift. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 94 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2009, 2010, 2015 and 2023. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 28 times. The weeks in which this happened: October 26 to November 1, 2014 November 2 to 8, 2014 November 9 to 15, 2014 November 23 to 29, 2014 December 7 to 13, 2014 December 28, 2014 to January 3, 2015 May 17 to 23, 2015 July 17 to 23, 2016 August 27 to September 2, 2017 November 7 to 13, 2021 November 14 to 20, 2021 April 9 to 15, 2023 July 2 to 8, 2023 August 6 to 12, 2023 September 17 to 23, 2023 September 24 to 30, 2023 October 1 to 7, 2023 October 15 to 21, 2023 October 22 to 28, 2023 November 5 to 11, 2023 November 12 to 18, 2023 December 3 to 9, 2023 December 10 to 16, 2023 January 28 to February 3, 2024 February 4 to 10, 2024 February 11 to 17, 2024 February 18 to 24, 2024 February 25 to March 2, 2024

What do you all say about changing the infobox image to one of the Golden Globe ones?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. @

POV as the fact of the dispute when that's not the case. ℛonherry☘ 11:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NOTE CLOSELY the words used by the sources you cited: "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is a reliable source that says it more plainly for you - [1]. "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)[reply]

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 "In December 2023, Swift's lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to American programmer Jack Sweeney over tracking her private jet, alleging stalking and safety risks; media outlets have reported that the information posted by Sweeney is a synthesis of publicly available data." ℛonherry☘ 16:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not see how it is "favoring" Swift's POV considering the sentence structure is strongly neutral: "In December 2023, [Swift's allegations]; [media saying Sweeney's sources are public]". There are no phrases/clauses in Wikipedia's voice that favors either of them. ℛonherry☘ 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I meant not including the public side at all. Apologies for the misunderstanding. glman (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way it is currently phrased in the article is fine - @Ronherry: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense. This borders on the absurd. Ultranuevo (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I haven't commented previously, I have been "tracking" this discussion since it started. I agree with the wording inserted in this change [2] for the reasons others have identified above. Jessintime (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I should bring this matter to the Teahouse or here, but since this question is mainly about Swift, I guess I'll just ask it here.

I found a bunch of photos online that I can download for free. I don't *think* they're copyrighted? But once I download them, and they are mine, would I be able to upload them to Wikipedia?

If you want to see for yourself, then here's the link: https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/taylor-swift-golden-globes.html

Thanks! CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are more likely than not copyrighted. What evidence do you have that they are under any kind of creative common license? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't; I just clicked on the image for info and it didn't say about copyright. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the URL you gave us. Apart from the copyright symbol next to the username, which I assume copyrights the person's username? I don't think there is any other copyright on the image itself. The usage license seems to be free. Though, I'd like other editors to weigh in. Image copyrights are not my specialty. ℛonherry☘ 07:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read over the terms of use for that site, and I think that, so long as they are tagged as royalty-free and you use the download button provided on the site, then you can download them. I would suggest that, when you upload to the Commons, tag it as fair use to be safe. Jwilli39 (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronherry@Jwilli39 Thanks! CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwilli39, CallieCrewmanAuthor: You can't upload fair use images to Commons, and royalty-free does not mean it is compatible with Commons' licensing. However, there's a few photos of her in the same dress, in the same event already in commons at c:Category:Taylor Swift in 2024.

@Ronherry: The copyright symbol next to the username copyrights the photo. Dreamtime's royalty free license places restrictions on what the photo can be used for, which is contrary to CC-BY-4 licensing. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest otherwise, then? Jwilli39 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's a pressing need for photos of her, but you can always search other places on the internet (Flickr, Youtube, etc.) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not run into the same issues of copyright, no? Jwilli39 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr allows photos to be licensed under a compatible license. For example, this is liscensed under CC BY 2.0, a

compatible license

, and is now on Commons.

Youtube also allows videos to be licensed under CC BY SA. For example, this shows it has been compatibly licensed when you expand the description. A frame from the video can be, and was, uploaded to Commons, and now serves as the infobox image for Justin Trudeau. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Debate over best lead sentence paragraph, feel free to add options below:

• 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.

Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They all contain

neutral point of view policy while properly conveying her influence. FrB.TG (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

How about this: Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. A subject of widespread public interest, 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)[reply]

Yes, that does sound better. FrB.TG (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]