Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Taylor in 2010

Taylor now resides in Hendersonville, Tennessee. She lives very close to her old school, Hendersonville High School. She is now working on her 3rd album. But she still finds time to hang out with her best friends, Selena Gomez and Abigail. She is currently single, but has been reconnecting with former boyfriend, Joe Jonas. But they are NOT dating at the moment. They are just friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadelovespink (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • That's very interesting. But without a reliable source, it's also of no use to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Singer Taylor Swift (pictured) wins Album of the Year for Fearless and rock band Kings of Leon wins Record of the Year for "Use Somebody" at the 52nd Grammy Awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.164.156 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Producer?

Why is she listed as a Record Producer in the opening sentance? All I can find for Production credits is on Fearless, which is common for many artists to do on their own works. I would qualify calling someone a Producer once they have worked on other artist's projects primarily as a producer as opposed to an musician or songwriter. Any objections to removing this? --PM - PhilyG talk 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Swift: Renaissance Girl

"She was a member of a local SNL-inspired kid's sketch comedy group, TheatreKids Live!, where she was a natural comedic talent."

Citation/evidence of this apparent comedic talent?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.72.60 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 February 2010

Can only find this on blogs, eg [1]. Removed. Gimmetrow 12:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

There are nine images of Swift in the article. Do we really need the two full body shots in which she can barely be seen: File:Keithtaylor 049.JPG & File:Taylor Swift St. Louis 04.25.09.JPG??? (Note that when you click the links here the image you see is much larger than it is in the article.) I think not. They're only there because someone wanted a pic that they took to be the article, not what's best for the article. They add nothing to the article. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No criticism section?

You mean to tell me there's nothing in the article at all about the criticism on her lack of singing skills? Her disastrous performance at the 52nd annual Grammys with Stevie Nicks [2] [3], [4]? The controversy surrounding her Grammy win for Album Of The Year [5], [6]? Even her record label has been forced to respond to the backlash [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Hell, just typing "Taylor Swift" into Google news brings up HUNDREDS of results about the Grammys controversy, but her Wikipedia article reports nothing on this at all. Yet there's a whole section about what happened at the VMAs with Kanye West? This article is a total whitewash. It looks as though it were written by a biased Taylor Swift fan. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Generally speaking, criticism sections aren't a great idea. If there is legitimate criticism, from reliable third part sources, it should be incorporated into other sections, not as a stand alone section. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The PR team who scours this bumpf are also very mindful to not let there be any public mention of Liz Rose who receives songwriting awards for making the music with Taylor Swift. Swift's long-documented inability to sing is also white-washed out of this Wikipedia entry. Welcome to the world of high-stakes promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.6.105 (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For such a long-documented fact, there is a dearth of documentation in the article. If you want to include this information, write it from a neutral point of view and source it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

People who went to Wyomissing, PA with Taylor Swift actually say she was one of the 'populars' in high school and the school used to play her demo music on the morning announcements. She may have been bullied in middle school, as she claims in magazine articles, but in high school, she had tons of friends and was one of the wealthier teens in her community. A facebook group called "I Knew Taylor Swift Before She Was Famous" has mixed reports of how people felt about her in high school. But all bias and jealous rants aside, from people's experiences, the general consensus is that she was popular, teachers really supported her singing dream, and Wyomissing itself is not a "country"-like place. For the record, Wyomissing is a residential and commercial community, without any farms. (Taylor's family had a TREE farm.) Songs about feeling left out and boys breaking your heart are more relatable to the average teen girl than ones of being popular and supported, but Taylor's version of her Cinderella adolescence is rather inaccurate - and unfair to fans that just want to know the real her. Bluemoonblacksky (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • And what is the point of this unsourced story of her childhood? Sadly, some wrongheaded people think a place needs to be "country" to make a difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fact is a lot of accurately, credibly sourced information - as noted below - from the Los Angeles Times, New York Times etc. - is missing from this promotional page on Taylor Swift. It's locked against editing, semi-protected, and, clearly, the content that is appearing is not full, balanced, nor does it represent a neutral point of view. It's record company and fan hype. This sort of advertorial content posing as biographical info is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a name for not being truly credible. Will anyone of the users who are allowed to edit this page willing to include some factual balance to the myth that currently passes for a Swift page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodeoDriver (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, suggest the specific text you want added (with sources) and if it meets our guidelines, I'll add it in. --NeilN talk to me 06:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Making a mention about the outrage surrounding her abysmal performance with Stevie Nicks and win for Album of The Year at the Grammys would be a start. I provided a BOATLOAD of sources in my original post. All of 'em reliable. You have no excuse not to use them. If you can have a section about Kanye interrupting Taylor, surely you can at least say SOMETHING about what was easily the most talked about moment at the Grammys. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you did mention it, my bad for that. But still, it's a one-sentence mention. It makes it look as though only a couple of people bitched about it. It also fails to mention that there is some outrage over her win for AOTY, and it doesn't even mention that her label had to respond to the backlash. Yet there's a full paragraph dedicated to Kanye West. That incident generated no more controversy than Taylor at the Grammys. The article is still incredibly biased. There is plenty of objective criticism regarding Taylor's singing skills, yet all this article is is praise upon praise for her, with no criticism whatsoever. Unrealistic and unfair. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

TBH, your sources for the criticism are not that great; a brief mention in a Time magazine online "package," and various blogs (these are blogs associated with reputable publications, so they're not dreadful sources; but actual articles from Entertainment Weekly or the LA Times would be much better). The Kanye incident received much more publicity, appearing in numerous newspaper articles and on TV news broadcasts and talk shows. As far as I can see, the criticism of her Grammys win (as opposed to her performance) is entirely a matter of Facebook groups, forums, and (non-notable) blogs; the closest we get to mainstream coverage is two MTV website articles reporting on this online outrage. I don't think that justifies inclusion in the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I did provide EW and LA Times as sources, and I had Rolling Stone (a MUSIC magazine) in there as well. Her label's statement regarding the performance does deserve a mention as well. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I noticed one of you mentioning on another talk page that this article is protected: I've requested it be unprotected, so we shall see how that works out. If it is left protected, you can always make specific content suggestions here and I'll try to incorporate them as possible. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we tried unprotecting it briefly, and immediately the vandalism and unsourced BLP violations came flooding in. It's going to stay protected for a reason. If you can't edit the article, make suggestions for improvements here. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, last time it was unprotected was in November. The article was vandalized at a rate of about once an hour before it was reprotected. I'd say leave the semi-pro on unless/until the flagged revision feature comes into play. Tabercil (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Likely there was an unusual flurry of activity last November due to the Kanye West/Taylor Swift incident at the VMAs. To keep a page protected for three months is awfully long. In terms of public interest, that incident is water well under the bridge. There is so much unbalanced and not neutral in terms of the content of this page as it now stands, it will never get fixed if you keep it sealed from a wider group of public editors. If that matters.RodeoDriver (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a flurry earlier today when we tried unprotecting it. As I said, if you have changes you'd like to make, suggest them here. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Semi-protect shouldn't be a problem. If someone wants to add something that badly, it's not like creating an account costs money or takes more than a minute. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I Don't Know Where To Add This Here

Can someone please change who she plays in the movie Valentine's Day. I believe that the name Samantha Kenny is incorrect and that she plays a girl named Felicia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.40.133 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Stevie Nicks duet

Nothing about her singing off key next to Stevie nicks; I know nothing about it but it was on TMZ which is fairly notable; or well, at least it's highly publicized. It was bad enough for the record label to issue a statement about it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're living in a cave on a continent on another planet, it's hard to miss out on what's been the biggest news story to emerge from the 2010 Grammys. Read the New York Times or Los Angeles Times reviews - or any of the several hundred other news stories worldwide on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodeoDriver (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying it should be included? Like I was suggesting. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay it is included Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stevie Nicks duet

Nothing about her singing off key next to Stevie nicks; I know nothing about it but it was on TMZ which is fairly notable; or well, at least it's highly publicized. It was bad enough for the record label to issue a statement about it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're living in a cave on a continent on another planet, it's hard to miss out on what's been the biggest news story to emerge from the 2010 Grammys. Read the New York Times or Los Angeles Times reviews - or any of the several hundred other news stories worldwide on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodeoDriver (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying it should be included? Like I was suggesting. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay it is included Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As tiny a reference it was - relative to the magnitude of the issue - it's been removed. It should definitely be included, along with a lot of other content that provides some factual balance to the pr hype posing as biography here. It's this sort of poor material that loses Wikipedia credibility and gives foundation to people who argue it's not a reliable source. The Taylor Swift Article, unfortunately, stands as Exhibit A for anyone that wants to say Wikipedia is not a serious record. RodeoDriver (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I noticed one of you mentioning on another talk page that this article is protected: I've requested it be unprotected, so we shall see how that works out. If it is left protected, you can always make specific content suggestions here and I'll try to incorporate them as possible. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we tried unprotecting it briefly, and immediately the vandalism and unsourced BLP violations came flooding in. It's going to stay protected for a reason. If you can't edit the article, make suggestions for improvements here. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, last time it was unprotected was in November. The article was vandalized at a rate of about once an hour before it was reprotected. I'd say leave the semi-pro on unless/until the flagged revision feature comes into play. Tabercil (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Likely there was an unusual flurry of activity last November due to the Kanye West/Taylor Swift incident at the VMAs. To keep a page protected for three months is awfully long. In terms of public interest, that incident is water well under the bridge. There is so much unbalanced and not neutral in terms of the content of this page as it now stands, it will never get fixed if you keep it sealed from a wider group of public editors. If that matters.RodeoDriver (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a flurry earlier today when we tried unprotecting it. As I said, if you have changes you'd like to make, suggest them here. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Semi-protect shouldn't be a problem. If someone wants to add something that badly, it's not like creating an account costs money or takes more than a minute. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this page still fully "protected"? And how is it that none of the people who are allowed to edit, ever include balance. Instead, an already unbalanced, promotional, whitewash of an article, regularly gets a new laundering. RodeoDriver (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's protected because of violations of the biographies of living persons policy from new and unregistered editors. Whether or not you can edit it, you should discuss big changes her first but if you have a minor change or a correction, then you can use {{editsemiprotected}} here, followed by your suggestion. On another note, if my calculations are correct, RodeoDriver, you should be autoconfirmed with another 2 edits so you should be able to edit it then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taylor_Swift/Archive_2&oldid=1142315005"