Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

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. @Glman: "Two reliable sources plainly call it public" 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)

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)

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 - [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)

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)

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: "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)

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 - @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)

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 [2] 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)