Jump to content

Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Another Albun

Is "Can You Handle Mine?" another album???

https://alexpolanco.wordpress.com/2006/09/17/britney-spears-can-you-handle-mine-2006/

https://www.torrentz.com/3bdb8d871f2edb8ca7f409b67fc40bd4fb8e4f63

No that looks more like a bootleg to me. Myrockstar 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Darkmind1970

What's the correct style for alluding to the fact that her cheese is finally slipping off her cracker? Her recent actions have been... disturbing. Darkmind1970 15:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
'Britney has recently been slammed by critics and fans alike for her erratic behavior. Celebrity journalists on Sky News were in a split argument about whether she is trying to gain publicity while her career is inactive or she was stressed by her divorce with dancer and wannabe-rapper K-Fed, a.k.a Kevin Federline. Most agreed that Britney is officially over-for now. 'Chances of her going back to the bubblegum,innocent girl in a school uniform. Um, zero.' quoted a fan. That' just my take on it. Of course, it isn't the most serious ever, but hey.The photo of Britters bald has scarred me for life, seriously. 212.139.222.62
"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Britney Spears article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

But yes, her new look isn't particularly nice at all, and she has been behaving erratically.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

BRITNEY QUOTES " I AM GOING OUT WITH PARIS HILTON ON 4/7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The word 'numeral' should be 'numerous' in the 'Career development' section. Lacking an account, I'm bringing this up here. - Anon

Picture

Can we change the picture to reflect her current look? I feel that we're being a bit nanny stateist here. 84.71.21.231 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though we can't for multiple obvious reasons, I'll give you the most important one; the current image is free, any other image that has been posted "reflecting" her current look isn't. Myrockstar 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That's all the reason we need. Although if it was possible to lawfully and fairly post a picture "reflecting" her new look then I personally feel it would be reasonable to post it further down in the article. Suriel1981 06:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

britney shaving her dome

i think this should be in her public image section. really has nothing to do with her career.

That's debatable... it highlights the fact that she seems to be having something of a mental breakdown or some personal instability, which will probably have an effect on her pop career.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Britney's religion

Is Britney Catholic? If so, she might've gone wild as a run-up to Lent. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

- Catholic? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Cravenmonket 06:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

LMAO. She's not Cathlolic, however. She's Jewish, under that Kaballah crap. Bigman17 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

i think that beittney does all of this crap just 2 get attition!! and she oops did it again!! haha hi kt!! ily

She was brought up a Southern Baptist. 58.160.183.52 09:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AHL club offer

Is there anywhere on the page where an offer by the American Hockey League's Syracuse Crunch offer of a all-expenses paid vacation to Syracruse vacation for Britney to get put in the article? I noticed there was no trivia section, although this is an interesting little tidbit that I feel would go well for the article. See an article here about it [[1]]. -An anonymous former editor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.72.124.173 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

A reminder to all editors

Please adhere to Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, most particularly the fact that this page is here for discussion of the article, not our assessments of Ms. Spears. As to the issue of addressing within the article her "cheese slipping off her cracker", as one editor put it, this would require cited commentary by a recognized expert in the field—whatever that is—discussing her actions and the potential effect on her career and custody of her children (the "effect" in a cause-and-effect relationship). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So we can't put that in the article. But something along those lines would be pretty revelant. I'm sure we could find links to ten thousand Websites saying that 'the cheese is slipping of her cracker'- though that's a weird expression in my opininon, and not exactly encyclopediac. 80.43.74.191 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but does any of those ten thousand quote a recognized, respected "expert"—again, whatever that is—who would pass consensus here? If so, then it certainly merits mention if, again, effect (career, child custody, etc.) is demonstrated (and, no the article would not use phrases involving cheese or crackers—or similar—except by direct quote). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rehab for what?

Does anybody know specifically what ailment Britney hopes to be rehabilitated for? Alcohol? Heroin? Coke? Sex addiction? Michael Richard's "crazy racist" disease? Every news story I can find just says "rehab" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.123.28 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

By you knowing exactly what her problem is, how does that enrich your life? I'd like to know so that when I find out, I can use that to better myself too. /:-| 64.241.230.3 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How does anything about Britney enrich any of our lives? Is personal enrichment a requirement for inclusion in wikipedia?unsigned comment was added by 71.214.123.28
The news stories don't say and, if you'll forgive me for noting the obvious, we can't speculate within the article until they do. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Rehab for taking in too much Coke. Bigman17 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Britney is not dead

Gosh! first it was Daniel Radcliffe and now Britney Spears, she is not dead ok?? :O!

"Julian Marval" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.210.125.5 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Please refresh your browser cache—that vandalism already was removed from the article. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism

We Need To Do Something About Constant vadalism. I checked on The Britney Spears Article and when I saw death My heart almost jumped out of my body. My grandmother has a stroke and when I told her, she was devastated. MicP GMT 6:46 Feb 23 2007

I could understand if you're upset if she did die, but isn't that overdoing it some? Black Kat 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. This is because that was exactly how it happened. MicP GMT 10:34 Feb 24 2007

On Deleting reliable sources about 2007 personal problems

Someone keeps deleting out the details about events that have reliable sources, apparently in an effort to preserve their personal view of Spears this seems like POV.

  • Please look at the following quotes (emphasis added) found at wiki-standards under WP:LIVING
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
--Wowaconia 18:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume that it is in "an effort to preserve" my "personal view." My view on Britney Spears is very neautral. If I keep reverting your edits it is because I find all that extra information unnecessary. We really don't need

  1. The name of the hair salon and the owner, by the way the hair is no longer on ebay but on an independant site which I added a reliable (in a better format might I add) source for.
  2. Details on what tattoos, where she got them, and that it started a whole trend is incredibly unnecessary
  3. Her pounding of an SUV with an umbrella

Maybe you need to read this part a bit more carefully:

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources"

Sure people talked about her beating an SUV but not as much as her going back to rehab, besides direct pictures from x17 are not a relaible source. - Myrockstar 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

On reliability -Please look again, the reference is the New York Daily News which is a six time pulitizer winning newspaper and so there is no question that they are a reliable source on this information.
On auctions - The first editor to note that the saloon had set up there own site to sell the hair was me and you deleted that information. You keep reverting back in the dated information about the Red Bull and bic lighters, but that stuff has been yanked by the people at Ebay so its not actually there. There are still people selling hair on ebay cliaming it was hers.
On details - Most of the major media is mentioning exactly what tatoos she got, and where she got her hair cut and her tatoos at, so there is little question if that is worthy of inclusion in the article. All the details you keep deleting have been found worthy of inclusion in stories by many professional editors so it makes no sense for you to continually delete them.
On link to pictures - A direct link to pictures from X17 is there because the photos are copy-righted and if a reader wants to see them its the only way to do so legally, any attempt to put those pictures here would be speedily deleted. These exact same pictures have also appeared on cables news channels.Some of this exact same pictures have also been licensed by CNN-IBN, India and can be seen here at https://www.ibnlive.com/news/britney-hits-paparazzi-with-umbrella/34381-8.html It is X17 that owns the original copyright as sites like this one for a New Zealand media company site them – see https://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/westcoast/3971955a1860.html Same thing for this US media site at https://www.theage.com.au/news/people/britney-spears-suv/2007/02/23/1171733982185.html

--Wowaconia 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the New York Daily news solved world hunger, they got their source from OK! Magazine which to me is very questionable. Still if that is to be included, the only ref for that would be OK! Magazine since they originally posted that story about Federline threatining to drug test her hair

This is what the sentence states "The hair has been put on sale by the owner of the salon, along with a half-drunk can of Red Bull, a Bic lighter and the clippers that were used to shave her head" No where does it say that all that was put or taken off from eBay. Who cares that it was on eBay, if anything about that matters now is that it was all put on an independant site. I'm sure over the years hundreds of Britney's personal belongings such as a chewed piece of gum have been put on sale on eBay but should we include every single one of those?

We are not a major media outlet, this is also not a tabloid journal it is an encyclopedia. Details on her tattoos are completley irrelevant and unnecessary to this whole story. By the way, who are these professional editors you speak of? And when did they find those details "worthy of inclusion"? To me it is still not justified why the inclusion of all these girls visiting that parlor and requesting Britney's tattoos is important. It looks more like a personal advertisement for that parlor. What makes no sense is for an encyopledic article to state that "she got a pair of pink lips."

Citing the pictures in x17 as a source for her attack on that SUV is not reliable even if hundreds of media outlets have picked them up, what's reliable would be an article or news report stating why they are so important. Every ref still states that even they "believe" or speculate that Britney was not allowed to see her children and as a result beat up that SUV, and as a result of that ended up back in rehab. The incidents from that night are still uncomfirmed, the only thing we know is that Federline requested an emergency hearing that for some reason or another was cancelled the next day, and that day Spears re-entered rehab.

If you keep adding so much detail that section will be as big as the entire article by the end of 2007.

And please use the SHOW PREVIEW button more often before you save your changes. Thanks

- Myrockstar 22:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's concern is using reliable sources, the New York Daily News fits into the criteria that Wikipedia has supplied on such sources. These sources have professional editors who look out for the papers intrest so they don't get sued for liable. Wikipedia is not privy to how they gather or test there information. One of our main concerns in demanding reliable sources is to sheild us against liable charges. As sources like the New York Daily News have cited this information us citing them removes any legal stigma on Wikipedia. The fact that the national media is running the magazine's statements is obviously noteworthy in Spear's life, so it merits inclusion. If you think otherwise feel free to contact the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which enforces all the standards on articles about living persons.

I fail to understand why you think describing what tatoos she got is unwarranted. This information is all in one sentence. An encyopledic article can state that "she got a pair of pink lips" if that's what happened and that is what actually happened. The inclusion of the information about the frenzy of people getting the same tatoos as her matches the frenzy over buying her hair. This type of information shows how much sway she has in the culture even if she is in a distressed state. One such editorial staff that included the information on her tatoos is the Fox News article that sympathetically said rehab false starts are not uncommon (the ref is cited in the article and is at https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253419,00.html ). Here are just a few more examples of editorial staffs viewing the information as notable - The Denver Post of Colorado at https://test.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5281599 The Glasgow Daily Record in Scotland at https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=don-t-take-my-boys-&method=full&objectid=18669350&siteid=66633-name_page.html The International News Service, Australia https://feed.insnews.org/v-cgi/feeds.cgi?feedid=145&story_id=2659113 The Philadelphia Inquirer, PA https://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/16730484.htm The West Central Tribune of Minnesota https://www.wctrib.com/articles/index.cfm?id=16801

I am not citing the X17 photos as a source, I am saying that's where the copy-righted photos are if a reader wants to see them. The source of the timeline of the information is in several places in that segment including right after the sentence with the link to those photos - its the New York Daily News. If you like, I could also put in all the references I included in my last comment on this thread that speak of the same event.

Upon reviewing the citation about the bic and Red Bull, I see that your source Access Hollywood is saying that the shop is selling this. I hadn't seen that information in any of the pulitizer prize winning papers that your questioning me for using but I have no reason to doubt it. I'll go ahead and fix the paragraph as per your comments.

Questions of length are not a problem for Wikipedia see WP:NOT#PAPER. If notable events continue to occur and the page goes over 60kb then segments are moved to their own subpage and linked to from here, the main-page.

--Wowaconia 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the history page, a separate editor reported that he was having problems with the link to the X17 site, so he dropped it. That's fine with me then, if people can't get there then the inclusion of the link is pointless and its rightfully deleted.--Wowaconia 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are just having a case of recent-scandalities. You fail to see the bigger picture which is many more events will happen in the girls life this year alone and if we document everything with such serious detail as you do we will have an enormous article. Summary of style recommends that articles should be kept at around 30 kbs, this article is well into 70kbs. Not that there is anything wrong with that but if we hope to get the article to FA status they might see this as a problem. Someone suggested that an article noting all of Britney's controversies should be started, I think you've shown you are passionate enough to start it up. I'm sure in there you could include as many details and sources as you want.

WP:LIVING reads the following:

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

On regards to her shaving her head after Federline's threat, and the confrontation at his home Is Ok! Magazine reliable at all? Even if other media outlets reported it, no one that was with Federline or Britney has made a statement about what happened. Anything else is speculation and un-reliable.

By the way, I'm questioning the title of the article "Brit freaks again as train wreck rolls on." I think this shows that the publication has some sort of agenda towards Spears.

- Myrockstar 07:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't cite OK! Magazine I cited national media who risk there companies reputation and finances if they reprint libel - its not notable that the magazine is making this claim its notable that the national media has reviewed the claim and is repeating it. These are not "partisan websites" or "obscure newspapers".

I don't understand why you think the phrase "multiple tattoos" is preferable to the description of the two tattoos. With your phrase it leaves it open to how many and where they are. With "multiple tattoos" she could have had five, six, ten, who knows. With "multiple tattoos" she could have had one on her head like Sinead O'Conner, a whole back panel, a bunch up and down her arms and legs, ones on her chest and groin, etc.

The information about the umbrella and the car is notable because it could be cited in court and she could lose any custody of her kids which would permanently significant. Tattoos are also permanent so it would seem one sentence describing them is not outrageous.

Many of the headlines chosen do seem to be geared towards selling newspapers, but it is the content of the stories that matters. Do you detect some bias in the main body of the story?

If this segment gets too big it could move to its own sub-page, but it is just as likely that she could stay in rehab, fix her difficulties and the segment could be closed by an additional sentence or two.

Wowaconia 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Suicide Attempt?

Is it true she attempted suicide? Toajaller3146 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

of course not


Why wa it a headline then? Toajaller3146 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

These rumors were addressed and quashed by her manager see info at https://www.teenhollywood.com/d.asp?r=143325&c=1055

--Wowaconia 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you believe her manager? Honestly?

No Sex and the City Appearance

Someone noted in the list of things to do before FA status can be reached that her appearance on SatC should be mentioned. She was never on Sex and the City. There were many rumors that she would make a guest appearance, but it never came to be. 69.246.165.67 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Addiction?

Alcohol was one of the things she was admitted for, but was the other drugs she entered in rehab ever stated? I suppose I'm more curious than anything. Hanzolot 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that it's true or anything but i read somwhere that she abuses drugs. I even read that she shaved her head because of drug test. Can anyone confirm this?

Seriously

This article is about as long as the one on President Bush. Am I the only one who thinks this article is way too long? YellowTapedR 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To some people, she is as important as the President... Frankly, this article has bloated itself back to "B" status (or just a very large "start"). There is tremendous over-emphasis on her daily trivial actions and too much breathless coverage of her 2007 rehab stints. One should just be bold and ruthlessly trim the article of all un-encycopedic information. Unfortunately, there is one or two fans that are acting as her "article guardians". --Eqdoktor 06:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I was WP:BOLD and removed a big chunk of tabloid trash cruft that had attached itself to the article. Before the self-appointed guardians of this page show up to revert, may I remind you that this is an encyclopedic article on Spears, not her tabloid stalker page. Please exercise some judgment of the stuff you put in the page. In the long run (in an encyclopedia), does it matter that she was seen driving around with her kid on the lap one day? Or that some bozo is selling her hair clippings? It may be well sourced on a Reuters entertainment page but in the end its just well sourced tabloid cruft that has no place in Wikipedia. This first round of editing is just the start to trim the page back to an acceptable size and quality. --Eqdoktor 09:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not TABLOID material. It's her public image which has been tarnished. The section explains "why" it has become tarnished to begin with. It's staying, period. This is not a fan site. Downdown723 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does an encyclopedia article need to explain this "tarnish" thing? Sounds WP:POV biased - the whole section is unbalanced. Why is nearly 1/3 of her article taken up with details of her riding with her kid on her lap and associating with Paris Hilton? Its trivial - well sourced BUT trivial. I also need to remind you of WP:OWN - no one is the self appointed guardian of Britney Spear's Wikipedia page - there is nothing to "defend" here. --Eqdoktor 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's is NOT trivial. Do you even know who this woman is? This is her image. This is what the public is seeing of her and reporting every time her name appears. Downdown723 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, of course it is trivial. The stuff about her current public image can be summed up in about one paragraph. Maybe something like: In early 2007, Spears filed to divorce Federline, checked into rehab at least three times, shaved her head and was videotaped smashing a van with an umbrella.

This article goes into such depth it is embarressing. Just look at this paragraph:

"Spears announced her pregnancy via her official website in April 2005. That month she was rushed to a hospital in Destin, Florida, where she spent forty-eight hours under a doctor's surveillance.[30] On September 14, 2005, 6 lb. 11oz. baby boy Sean Preston Federline was born in the Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, California, by a scheduled caesarean section. Two days later, Spears and her son were released from the hospital.[31]"

Wouldn't it just be better to say: On September 14, 2005, Spears gave birth to her frist child in Santa Monica, California by caesarean section. ... It no longer matters that she was released two days later -- that's standard for women who undergo c-sections -- and it's also irrelevant that she was put under surveillance before giving birth, which is also common. Just my opinion. YellowTapedR 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Spears is a tabloid personality, and so I think that events reported widely in tabloids about her are important. Moreover, to claim that events that are widely reported in tabloids are somehow "trash" or "unencyclopedic" is a totally biased and POV judgment. Why are you more qualified to decide what has value than readers of tabloids? May I remind the editors that Spears has not released any new music in several years and is more famous than ever not because if her "work" but because of the tabloid headlines she continues to garner. Tabloid-reported events are thus absolutely legitimate for inclusion.--Agnaramasi 16:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and no—and, at the risk of seeming the broken record. Tabloid-style news must satisfy two criteria: verifiability, based on its original source (for example, if CNN repeats from the entertainment wires a story from Us Weekly without independent verification, it usually fails), and notability—and, more than simply "has it been reported", "notability" means "does anyone outside her fan base give a whit?" Only a cause-and-effect relationship—as in, driving with your baby unbuckled on your lap may (or may not) result in law enforcement intervention and partying pantiless and shaving your head may (or may not) hurt your child custody case (with proper citation)—can satisfy notability, or the data is fancruft and should be excised per WP:BLP. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We Started The Public Image Section For A Reason

It was to put the controversy into one concise section and not to clutter up all the other sections. This information has been here for years. It is not tabloid, and it has impacted her image leading up to her rehab stint. The section is staying, period. You cannot delete everything up to 2003, and pretend everything else didn't happen. The driving with her son on her lap is infamous.Downdown723 16:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read my reply to Agnaramasi immediately above, as well as WP:OWN and WP:CCC; nothing at Wikipedia is "staying [or going, for that matter], period." Having said that, the concise, single section is the way to go (see Lindsay Lohan); having said that, some of the data in dispute, no matter how well sourced, is no more than fancruft. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Public image" section and other parts not neutral

It appears to me that the entire section is pushing an agenda - WP:POV. It seems that we lose sight of the overall intent of the article in a blizzard of well sourced (but cherry picked) trivia with a subtle agenda to push a biased POV of Spears. I refer to the Wikipedia policy here: Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased_or_malicious_content.

I am hardly a fan or an anti-fan - I dropped by to read an article on her but am caught by surprise by the tabloid material in an article purporting to be a Wikipedia GA featured article. I am troubled by the subtle POV pushing evident in "Public image" and "2007:personal troubles" section. Is it the intent of the Wikipedia editors to make Spears look stupid, sluttish and drug addled?

I expected this when I started editing this page - there are far too many fans/anti-fans that have taken up as self appointed guardians of Wikipedia articles. I feel that these changes are needed. --Eqdoktor 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Eqdoktor, you are 100% WRONG. It is written in non-POV and everything that has been reported in the media. Not rumors. We have spent countless time to ensure that the section contains fact, and not rumored material, such as tabloid. This is what the public has seen, it is what has been reported and shown. If you are picking up that Spears seems stupid, sluttish, and drug addled, then perhaps that's what you've picked up from her behavior. That's your POV. This is all true, period. We started that section for a reason. Other celebrities have scandal sections as well. Your feeling is not the feeling of the majority of readers. We have this section to also document what was happening that led up to Spears' stint in rehab.Downdown723 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Explain to me and the admins (that will get involved once 3RR limit is reached) why the following entries are relevant in a purportedly GA standard encyclopedia article. I have been following up on the links cited - some of these links cited DON'T EVEN REFER TO THE CONTENT of the article. Well sourced my foot!
These are a precis of the stuff after 2003.
  • "The 2004 Onyx Hotel Tour brought new criticism." NOT SOURCED - link cited does not mention the Onyx Hotel tour. The whole paragraph is unsourced and biased WP:POV.
  • The supposedly infamous child on lap incident. - NO CRIMINAL CHARGE BROUGHT. Child welfare authorities not involved. How is this relevant?
  • On May 18, 2006, Spears was photographed leaving the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Manhattan with her 8-month-old son. As Spears walked through the people and paparazzi-crowded street, towards her car, she stumbled. Spears regained her balance and prevented the fall with the aid of her bodyguard, who was close by. After retreating to the F.A.O. Schwarz Café, Spears started crying. - This is encyclopedic HOW? This is a hideous stalkerazi item purporting to be a "well sourced encyclopedia entry" as you have it.
  • Vanity fair cover - already covered in her career section. This is relevant how?
  • Britney burping and saying silly stuff on a 3 min youtube video - WP:POV biased writeup.
  • Partying with Paris Hilton and underwear talk - yup, well sourced voyeuristic journalism at its best. From Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased_or_malicious_content: "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.
By the way, it seems that 3RR rule does not apply to bios of living people if I understand it correctly.
"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply."
Perhaps the best solution is the complete removal of this section "public image". --Eqdoktor 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem admitting that I am a fan of Spears, but even I'll admit that she is known just as much for personal scandalous antics than she is for her career. Unfortunetley over the past few years she hasn't had the best of luck. Her baby incidents along with her public flashing are things I would consider to be relevant as it was much covered in the major media. People will probably refer to these incidents for years to come. Even though they don't put her in the best of light, they should be documented. It is no way to put her in a negative light. - Myrockstar 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems whatsoever with unflattering entries especially with unimpeachable citations. What I find troubling is the indiscriminate additions of the her daily reported activities without any relevance (Britney cries after stalkerazis chase her? How is that important enough to be in an encyclopedia article?). Another troubling thing I see is the usage of clearly labelled "GOSSIP" editorials (completely biased POV meant to titilate) as cite sources - bad sources. For example the Paris Hilton/flashing item (you may need to check the history revisions - the source cited for that item WAS A GOSSIP PAGE (albeit on a news channel - BUT CLEARLY LABELED GOSSIP). As for the kid on the car lap/kid fall of chair article - it may be well documented but it gives undue weight on isolated incidents. The authorites and child welfare found nothing to follow up on and listing it here implies an unbalanced emphasis on innocent mistakes due to her celebrity status. --Eqdoktor 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The public image section is gone. I'm telling you though, what you are going to find is massive amounts of rubbish. This was the reason for the section. Tons of celebrities have criticism sections. The pictures of her driving down the highway with her child on her lap, which is against the law, will be forever tattooed in the public's mind, as well as the numerous pictures of her flashing her vagina, and her also commenting on the incident herself. You don't seem to understand the tarnishing of a person's image. It's just like Michael Jackson. Now when people are looking for information as to what led up to her stint in rehab, they'll have absolutely no idea what happened. Don't come crying to me on the edit wars, name-calling, and the page getting locked and/or spammed again. As I stated, we made that section for a reason, but since you are so insistent on creating a fan page, you will now have to see the consequences. Downdown723 18:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, get off your high horse and be civil. There is nothing to "come crying to" or "see the consequence" about. No one OWNS any any page in Wikipedia, so there is nothing to defend or get worked up over. Wikipedia encyclopedia is a consensus project and we are all unpaid volunteer editors in this endeavor. I am neither a fan nor anti-fan of Spears, just a Wikipedia user and editor. While we're at it, perhaps you may want to read WP:WEASEL as the whole "public image" section was chock full of weasel words - starting with the title (what public? what image? Who defined them and whats there to tarnish?). If anyone is foolish and voyeuristic enough to look in Wikipedia for reasons for Spear's rehab stints, they are looking in the wrong place. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a tabloid trash magazine with simplistic gossip pop explanations. --Eqdoktor 09:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been considering it for a while after someone made a mention and perhaps creating an article dedicated to her controversies would be best. What do you think? Myrockstar 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia being a consensus encyclopedia, your perfectly in the right to start a new article highlighting her media coverage if you think it will make a good encyclopedia article WP:BOLD. Realistically, keep in mind that it will be a fork from her bio article so, it will also need to conform to WP:BIO policies. Maintaining such a page is going to be a pain - either its going to veer towards hagiography (fawning fan coverage) or a full blown attack page (WP:POV cherry picked articles to make her look bad). Personal opinion: I don't know if there is enough significant encyclopedic content to fully warrant a "Britney Spears media coverage" page or enough of it to pass an WP:AFD (article deletion process) based on Wikipedia is not a news reports/archive website criteria. If you are going to start a new page, avoid using weasel words like "Public Image" (what Public? What image? vague euphemisms). --Eqdoktor 09:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Delisting

I am removing GA status from this article as it is a big bloated mess that has far too much irrelevant information that is unencyclopedic, especially the dramatic coverage of her various rehab visits and misc uneeded information about her daily life. Please list it as a GA candidate after it has been trimmed from unencyclopedic information. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Then what is relevant? It's her life. It's concise. It's been here for years. Downdown723 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Aye its a "B" at best now - too much fanboi/anti-fan voyeurism and stalking talk. --Eqdoktor 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well now what do you recommend we do to put it back on GA or FA? - Myrockstar 17:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is supposed to be a encyclopedic entry of Spears - not a detailed autobiography or diary of the subject on hand. The 2007 rehab stints can be compressed to one paragraph at most with just the salient facts. The whole article needs to be reviewed to remove the POV bias that seems to be in the selective listing of her activities (IMO, I removed the worst of it in my two cleanups). --Eqdoktor 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. And the edit warring over whether such content should be included has made it unstable (and as such not appropriate for GA anyway). Information, for example, about Spears' lack of underwear is both irrelevant and unencyclopedic. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comments: In the public image section:

Some people believe that she has courted it by cultivating, in her early years at least, a chaste, God-fearing and "wholesome" image. - Unsourced & weasel words.

This was somewhat at odds, not only with the traditional pressures, temptations and opportunities of "pop 'n' roll", but with the increasingly sexualized content of her own image and songs. - Example of poor prose.

Prompted by this, Playboy reportedly offered the star over one million USD to pose nude for their magazine, but Spears publicly declined. - Source?

On January 26, 2007, she lost her aunt, Sandra Bridges Covington, to ovarian cancer.[38] - Example of irrelevant content.

There's far more littered throughout the article. Definetely B class. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Biggest selling album by a male/female for one weeks sales

Amended this to just female. [2] Male is held by Eminem 60.234.242.196 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

isn't it Pearl Jam

What Happened?

Is it me, or does the Britney Spears article look crappier than ever. Everything looks so out of place and rushed. It doesn't have the same flow and precise placement it used to have. What's going on??? —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|--Paganpoetry005 15:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)]] comment was added by Paganpoetry005 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that. Myrockstar 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Basicly I think this person wants the whole story. Honestly, Not even i know whats going on. I dont know crap about britney, but I feel very sorry for her.

2007 personal struggles segment is POV

The total deletion of any details about the umbrella incident, the removal of the quote by Federline's companions on why he is not pursuing further legal action while she is in rehab and the removal of the mention of the national media running the OK Magazine report about the reason for her hair shaving makes this segment uninformative about well documented notable events reported by reliable sources. Any attempt to restore this information is deleted by people who openly confess to being her fans.

--Wowaconia 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw several sentence with references numbers in them today. How POV can it be? It sounds like series of facts and events to me. I'm taking the tag off, revert if you please. Xaxafrad 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait, is neutrality the same thing as POV? Where's the bias? Why did you remark about the poeple who deleted some information? I don't care who's a fan of who. I'll confess to not being a fan, but I don't see how that makes a difference. Maybe the disputed information should be pasted on this talk page so it can be discussed more properly. I started diving into the article history, but then realized I don't care that much. I'm sure another editor knows the quotes off the top of their head. Xaxafrad 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I may not care, but I guess I'm bored enough. The three revert rule has been broken, in this instance, I believe. There are multiple sources for the 666/antichrist business, maybe not in this article, yet, but they're there. Xaxafrad 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


The issue in this segment is not one of people forgetting to cite references, but of people deleting information what is well sourced and documented. Please read the thread Talk:Britney_Spears#On_Deleting_reliable_sources_about_2007_personal_problems. The article as of today has even less details than when that thread was made. Now there is absolutely no information of her incident with the umbrella and the car despite such news stories as https://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/500021p-421621c.html . The information that Federline is not pursuing legal action on the condition that she stay in rehab has been deleted despite it being from this source https://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/22/britney.spears.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest . Any information that she got tattoos has been deleted despite numberous reliable media references (see thread Talk:Britney_Spears#On_Deleting_reliable_sources_about_2007_personal_problems. The information that the national media is repeating the reports of OK! Magazine has been deleted, previously the article stated

"Several other national media sources have reprinted information presented by OK! Magazine’s Rob Shutter. He reported that the incident came after Spears and her ex-husband had a confrontation 'They had a huge argument. Kevin threatened Britney that he was going to have people test her hair to find out exactly what she’s been up to. She was so scared. That was what made her have her head shaved.'" The references cited were these https://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611713.shtml & https://cbs4denver.com/national/topstories_story_053115325.html & https://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/16752188.htm
--Wowaconia 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a lot of stuff. Personally, I think it's just a grand publicity stunt, and I doubt I'm alone, but that's just OR. I posted a notice about the contentious material on the WP:BLP noticeboard. For meta-discussion, is Wikipedia going to see a list of trusted (or perhaps a list of untrusted, or both) sources, or would there be unintended consequences in the practical aspects of such a suggestion? (which aspects?) Xaxafrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was all of that removed anyway? Things like the umbrella, the suicide attempts, and other events seems reasonable, to me, to put it. After all, they are solid facts that are relevant to the situation. A suicide attempt is a personal struggle. If anything, removing such facts seems like fans not wanting negative events posted, which is a bias POV. All of those are relevant, and encyclopedic. Why shouldn't they be put? Black Kat 1:57, 5 March, 2007 (UTC)

Here is the previous information overload paragraph which even I was willing to accept, but as a previous editor pointed out, and I agree with him/her, it just to much trivial, unnecessary and un-encylopedic material.


On January 26, 2007, she lost her aunt, Sandra Bridges Covington, to ovarian cancer.[47]

On February 16, after weeks of publicity surrounding her late night partying[48] and alcohol use, Spears entered an off-shore drug rehabilitation facility. She stayed, however, for less than twenty-four hours.[49] The following night, Spears went to a haircutting studio in Tarzana, California. The salon was already closed but opened up at Spears's request and she subsequently shaved [50]her own hair off with clippers. The hair has been put on sale by the owner of the salon, along with a half-drunk can of Red Bull, a Bic lighter and the clippers that were used to shave her head.[51] After leaving the salon, she visited a tattoo parlor and got two tattoos. Commenting on the incident, Spears told a tattoo parlor employee, "I don't want anyone touching me. I'm tired of everybody touching me."[52][53] OK! Magazine originally reported that the incident came after Spears and her ex-husband had a confrontation. “They had a huge argument. Kevin threatened Britney that he was going to have people test her hair to find out exactly what she’s been up to. She was so scared. That was what made her have her head shaved.” This is unconfirmed by both parties.[54]

On February 20, 2007, Britney re-admitted herself to a California treatment facility. A statement by her manager read, "We ask that the media respect her privacy as well as those of her family and friends at this time."[55] Spears again checked out of the facility less than twenty-four hours later. On February 21, 2007, Federline ordered an emergency hearing regarding the custody of his children with Spears. That same night, after travelling to Federline’s apartment, Spears "lashed out at an empty car, beating the doors and windows with a furled umbrella", all of which was caught on film by a photographer. [56] Spears returned to the rehab facility in Malibu this same night.[57] On February 22, 2007, Federline's lawyer called the bailiff of Los Angeles Superior Court and told them that his client asked to cancel the court appearance on custody. No further explanation was given.[58]

On February 27 TMZ has learned Britney Spears' troubles may have little to do with substance abuse. Sources say doctors at her rehab facility think the underlying reason for her trouble may be post-partum depression.

Sources tell TMZ that Britney's doctors have two operating theories -- either that she suffers from post-partum depression or bipolar disorder. The doctors strongly believe post-partum is the problem. [1]

The entire paragraph is well cited, you can find them here.

  • Why are the tattoos important? Sure they occured during the incident, but is there a way to prove that they are directly connected to what happened?
  • The hair being put on sale on ebay and then it's own site, what relevance does this have to Britney's situation? Yes it is her hair, but so far being put on sale hasn't impacted her life in any notable way.
  • The whole Ok! Magazine thing is still unproven and seems more like a fabrication from some bogus source the tabloid picked up. From the whole drug testing to an argument between Spears and Federline, like I said before, I don't care if the New York Times reports it, as long as they are citing Ok! Magazine as do the majority of references you posted, it isn't very credible.
  • Same thing for the suicide/anti-christ thing, in fact, Britney's biggest stalkers (<---- now that is POV) had the following to say...

"Over the weekend, some news outlets started picking up on rumors of Britney Spears attempting suicide at the Promises rehab facility in Malibu. The rumors are believed to have taken root after an ambulance showed up at the facility last week on Wednesday (above pix). X17 did not report on the paramedics' visit because we didn't want to create questions or concerns where none were warranted. If you read most articles on the supposed attempted suicide, most are written with unnamed sources and with direct quotes attributed to no one. We saw Britney later in the evening on the 28th, the same day we saw the ambulance, attending her first AA meeting outside of rehab. She was looking good and healthy -- far from what you'd expect someone who'd just attempted suicide to look like! She was out again the next evening for a Thursday night AA meeting, where X17 caught up with Brit exclusively. She gave us a sweet wave and a smile -- she looked great! So all-in-all, I'm not so sure I believe this story ..."

[3]

  • the umbrella attack, if perhaps Britney would've attacked a photographer right after, maybe breaking his jaw or leg, now that would have been notable. But it just isn't, even x17 and the owner of the SUV decided they would not press charges.

Although not as dramatic, this is how the Mariah Carey article handled her massively-tabloidecized break down, melt down whatever.

After receiving Billboard's "Artist of the Decade" Award and the World Music Award for "Best-Selling Female Artist of the Millennium",[2] Carey parted from Columbia and signed a contract with EMI's Virgin Records worth a reported US$80 million. She often stated that Columbia had regarded her as a commodity, with her separation from Mottola exacerbating her relations with label executives. Just a few months later, in July 2001, it was widely reported that Carey had suffered a physical and emotional breakdown. She had left messages on her website complaining of being overworked,[38] and her relationship with Luis Miguel was ending. In an interview the following year, she said, "I was with people who didn't really know me, and I had no personal assistant. I'd be doing interviews all day long, getting two hours of sleep a night, if that."[39] During an appearance on MTV's Total Request Live, Carey handed out popsicles to the audience and began what was later described as a "strip tease",[40] removing a large, baggy t-shirt to reveal a halter top and Daisy Dukes. By the month's end, she had checked into a hospital, and her publicist announced that she would be taking a break from public appearances.[41]

That would be a better way of where to take the section. I would agree right now it is short and doesn't provide enough information, but in no way POV. If you are going to play that "fan's don't want her lookin' bad" game, then I could easily say you're trying to implement your negative POV by adding all this trivial information and distracting from the important info. - Myrockstar 02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


As the inclusions I have sought to make are taken from national and international media sources and deemed important enough for publication in their media, it seems odd that you claim that there is some conspiracy a foot to make Spears look bad. The full length of additions that I attempted to make are at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britney_Spears&oldid=110698341#2007:_Personal_struggles I invite any interested reader to please take a look there to determine if any of that information merits inclusion. In an attempt to form consensus I did not argue for inclusion of ever fact presented there but this massive redaction that exists now is just ridiculous.

Wowaconia 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The so called "massive" reduction to a single paragraph or less is warranted. There is nothing ridiculous about trimming un-encyclopedic content from the Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia is not paper its also NOT a celebrity newspaper or scandal-sheet or soapbox. The first principle is that its an encyclopedia. It can be "well sourced" (see my thoughts below) but if it is of ZERO relevance to an encyclopedic article on subject matter - it can and should be removed. The loss of GA status of this article is directly attributable to the indiscriminate inclusion of irrelevant tabloid "news" into an encyclopedic article. --Eqdoktor 08:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I am troubled by this unquestioning acceptance of anything linked online and considering it "well-sourced". For example TMZ.com is a tabloid website.
"While positioning itself as an independent celebrity news site, the site is more widely regarded as a tabloid journal [3] but is unusual for its major corporate backing."
In the previously deleted section of the 2007 incident - you had people linking TMZ items citing doctors that describe Spears condition as "post partum depression". What tabloid trash - unless you are specifically interviewing Spear's actual doctor, what these "experts" are indulging is 100% pure speculation disguised as "expertise". It doesn't take a medical degree to dispense simplistic pop answers. Tabloid voyeurism. BTW, the link used in the above example is just a general www.tmz.com , nothing more specific - it badly sourced to start with. A lot of claims of "well sourced" when looked into - indicates otherwise. Just biased "hand waving" in a lot of cases - the links do not reflect whats written up in the article.
While we are at it, having an online pointer linking to a "news" website parroting tabloid material is NOT considered well-sourced. Gossip sections (relaxed journalistic standards of verification) and entertainment blogs (no verification needed) are NOT a good reference sources for encyclopedias. Even if you DO have a source like AP and Reuters (bah - as "entertainment news", god help the global media) reporting Spears hitting a car with an umbrella or not wearing underwear, some restraint is needed in putting that sort of stuff in the Wikipedia. Please remember the first 2 principles in the 5 pillars of Wikipedia - Its an encyclopedia (not a diary or a celebrity newspaper) and its got to be neutral. Some of these "sources" used as ref links are actually thinly disguised attack pages of celebrities disguised as "news" (I can post an example or 2 if required). One has to be terribly naive to think everything found online labeled as "news" (worst still is when we use websites clearly labeled as GOSSIP) is suitable as sources for Wikipedia. It has everything to do with editing content for an Encyclopedia. --Eqdoktor 08:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Your critique of TMZ doesn’t make sense in this thread as the only place were that is used as a source is in a different segment about her divorce or driving with her child or her lap. Your critique of someone else citing post-partum depression is bizarre as I never included that information which you would know if you bothered to click on the link that I provided above and repeat here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britney_Spears&oldid=110698341#2007:_Personal_struggles

If you want to attack someone else’s use of TMZ as a source please do so in a different thread as no one in this thread has advocated that. Again, please review the link at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britney_Spears&oldid=110698341#2007:_Personal_struggles for the information that I am actually calling for reconsideration for inclusion.

Your link to the Wikipedia standard “Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought” which you characterize as saying “Wikipedia is NOT a celebrity newspaper or scandal-sheet or soapbox” actually talks against using Primary (original) research, Original inventions, Personal essays, and Discussion forums – none of which am I advocating. The Wikipedia definition of Soapbox is Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, Self-promotion, or Advertising. The inclusion of the information is not designed to motivate any action at all but merely to inform, so it fails to violate the prohibition against soapboxes. The Guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons stresses using Reliable sources which were included. As the citations are all under reliable sources as per wikipedia’s guidelines I point you to the guideline at WP:LIVING that states:

“In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.”
--Wowaconia 10:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We can wikilawyer each other to no end. WP:BLP also states:

Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
and

Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.
Just what is the intent of Spear's Wikipedia Encyclopedia article? How relevant is the "umbrella" incident to the article apart from the prurient and voyeuristic nature of the item? What encyclopedic intent is served by running "OK magazines" speculations about her reasons in rehab? It is not the place of Wikipedia to serve up simplistic pop explanations and to satisfy "the public's" salacious curiosity about Spear's problems. It is not Wikipedia's role to do this - Tabloid magazines and gossip websites (they are unrestrained by things like WP:NPOV) do it far better than Wikipedia. All we do here is Encyclopedic facts and umbrella trashing and pop amateur psychology diagnosis are not encyclopedic details. --Eqdoktor 11:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

All of this behavior centers around custody of her children. This behavior will be presented before a judge in California state court. The only reason that this hasn't already happened is because Federline requested his lawyers not pursue this as long as she stays in rehab (a fact that has been deleted off the page). This information is factual, well documented, and seen by the majority of people as erratic. Had Spears not engaged in this behavior its hard to imagine the court taking her kids from their mother who has a superior income. The OK! Magazine article says that she cut her hair because Federline was going to have the custody court call for a drug test. The umbrella incident happened as a direct result of her frustration to visit her children at Federline's and her being prevented from doing so. The longterm notability of these events concern whether she will have any custody rights over the children she gave birth to.Wowaconia 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer for Spears or Federline? Just what makes you so sure it will all go to court? You just explained to all of us why all that isn't notable, BECAUSE IT HASN'T HAPPENED. If they do go to court, and all those incidents are taken into consideration, and the OK! article is proven true, THEN you it can go in, but as for now it's all tabloid crap. Myrockstar 15:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Please review the references cited, all of this is presented with mentions of custody and/or the children, legal proceedings have been mentioned numerous times in these articles. Custody decisions are a normal part of divorce proceedings.
  • The facts are simply that this stuff happened and is being reported in national and international media. I know User:Myrockstar that you have done a great deal of work on this article and any cursory glance at the history page makes that more than clear, but this page belongs to Wikipedia. Every time that I've tried to add information you've reverted it out because you decided that it was "unnecessary info". To me this seems like an arbitrary personal decision on your part so that's why I tagged the segment as POV and began this discussion. User:Xaxafrad has already called for the Wikipedia Noticeboard to weigh in on the situation and I am perfectly content to get their imput. Please note that the article still stands with the lack of details and I am not engaged in an edit war with you. Please remain civil this is a discussion about the POV tag, I haven't inserted the information back in that you find objectionable I am calling for discussion towards consensus.
Wowaconia 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed your references and as I have stated multiple times, it doesn't matter in what context they occured, the fact remains that to this day there is yet to be any court case that is notable enough to be mentioned other than Federeline's request for a custody hearing which was cancelled without any offical explanation. You have yet to prove how if at all tattoos and the umbrella attack had anything to do with it. Any arguments, threats or ultimatums are still uncomfirmed and unproven. I don't think I've excercised my "fandom" on any part of the article including that section because to this day the only facts we know is that she shaved her head and she's in rehab, as more things come out that are factual I'll be perfectly content to have them included as bad as they are but for now anything else could compromise the article as a whole. You seem to be doing all this because of your frustration towards not getting it done your way. I've given my side and I stand firm that you're edit just contained to many details and unnecassary information. Just what exactly will it take for you to remove that POV tag? We can't be arguing forever so I suggest you start compromising. Myrockstar 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If I was, as you claim, frustrated towards not getting it done my way, I'd be in an edit war not a discussion. I am not asking for everything I wrote to be included, but the meager data in the segment as it stands now is uninformative. I'm not reverting in my edits, so I fail to see why you write as if I have some sinister intent for disputing your opinion on what is and is not "too much information". Instead I am discussing the matter and awaiting the Wikipedia Biographies of living persons Noticeboard to settle the issue.

--Wowaconia 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, Myrockstar, but I don't say it to be negative. Actually, I feel bad for her and that she's going through this. Yet, at the same time, it is encyclopedic because an encyclopedia article talks about her, her life, and her career. This is a HUGE event in her life, so it is definitely valid. Something like her seen smashing a window and that was it then it would be nothing, but the fact that she's having a break down, and these are issues that have occured from it, they are relevant. Things like the umbrella, head shaving, and tattoos are events happening from her break down, and that isn't trivia. Trivia would be that her hair had been brunette before shaving it, or what exact type of tattoos she had put onto her skin. Anything that is gossip isn't encyclopedic. Anything that is big and notable in her life, that is encyclopedic. Black Kat 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to explain to me what the purpose of an encyclopedia is, I'm aware of what it is. The only "HUGE" event in her life going on is that she is in rehab, and before that she shaved her head. Two facts that are presented in the section. Although she most likely suffered a break down, we don't know the facts because nobody has officially sad anything. The same applies to the tattoos and the umbrella incident, we do not know if they are at all connected to her shaving, or to Federline not letting her see her children. As of now it all still remains speculation and gossip, and like you said gossip isn't encyclopedic. We have to find a way to connect the umbrella incident to her situation, we can't just say "Spears entered rehab on XX, before that she was photographed bashing an SUV with an umbrella" because then it either becomes trivial, or it gives the impression that her bashing an SUV has something to do with entering rehab, which we do not know. - Myrockstar 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I just say it as they lead up to the rehab check-in, and seem to all link in together. I have my theories (which of course I won't put since they're theories), but these events seem to play a part to leading-up to checking in. They just don't need to be all added in great detail. Black Kat 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Section break - Just how is all of the above encyclopedic?

Explain to me, how is anything of the above anywhere near encyclopedic that needs to be in Wikipedia? At best, its salacious voyeurism, at worst - its an invasion of privacy. I believe in the interest of WP:BLP such details can and should be left out UNTIL they are notable and relevant in the subject's life (in this case, if they are covered by RELIABLE (non-gossip, blog, tabloid) media in a court case). WP:BLP indicates that we should err on the side of caution. What need is there for Wikipedia to parrot tabloid style reporting immediately? Your assertion that it is: This information is factual, well documented, and seen by the majority of people as erratic is pure weasel wording (the majority of who? = WP:WEASEL) and erratic is a WP:POV biased language. Your passing judgement on something you have absolutely no privy to. "The umbrella incident happened as a direct result of her frustration to visit her children at Federline's and her being prevented from doing so." - unless you turn out to be Spear's personal physician/psychiatrist (breaking doctor/patient priveleges) that is YOUR OWN POP CULTURE amateur speculation that has ZERO PLACE in Wikipedia. Ditto with OK! Magazine's trash coverage of her behavior - pseudo speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. I'm afraid your explanation just about exposes the bias that is behind the thinking for the inclusion of such "facts" (not well sourced and speculative)

This is where the immediate nature of Wikipedia fails it - it can be updated so fast without the test of time to determine relevancy. Not only do we have to ensure verifiability, we need to exercise caution over the willy nilly inclusion of biased speculation like the above. --Eqdoktor 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please review the paragraph you claim contains weasel words. As my previous sentences were worded "All of this behavior centers around custody of her children. This behavior will be presented before a judge in California state court..." The sentence "This information is factual, well documented, and seen by the majority of people as erratic" is to be read with the subject understood to be "this behavior" so it should be read as "This information [about this behavior] is factual, well documented, and seen by the majority of people as erratic." I apologize if this was unclear.
  • I don't see how calling her behavior "erratic" is weaselly; compared to the rest of her life her new behavior is "liable to sudden unpredictable change" which is the defintion of erratic. "The majority" would be the majority of people who have expressed any opinion on this in any form of media. Are you saying you know a lot of people who do not see these events as a sudden unpredictable change?
  • It was not me who stated that the umbrella incident was a result of not being able to see her children but the news sources that are referenced.
--Wowaconia 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly your putting a lot of your own conjecturing in these reports. Your claiming relevance on issues you have absolutely no idea about - to wit, your saying its all relevant because of centers around the custody of the children. Unless your Spears, Federline, their lawyer(s) and immediate family - you are speculating. The Gossip media (yes - NY Daily news is one of them - their Pulitzer prizes are for exposing city/police corruption and other stuff - not for celebrity coverage) are THEMSELVES speculating about future court battles that HAVE NOT HAPPENED. This speculation is pretty much biased. The bare facts as presented now is the best and most neutral way to present the situation in Wikipedia. Anything else would be wild conjecture and biased speculation. The irony here is that the non-NPOV warning tag is asking to insert biased POV material.
As for weasel wording, the use of the term "the majority of people" is a classic case of Weasel_words#Generalization_using_weasel_words. I can not hope to claim to represent the views of "the majority" of people - and neither can any of us. Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording. Generalization in this way helps speakers or writers disappear in the crowd and thus disown responsibility for what they have said. As for the use of the word "erratic" - its a throw away line used in the NY Daily news source - a judgmental non-neutral POV biased description on the reporters part, which brings us back to my assertion of editors unquestioning use of media reports without filtering out the original reporters bias and speculations. It may be "sourced" but it sure as heck isn't reliable or relevant.
"It was not me who stated that the umbrella incident was a result of not being able to see her children but the news sources that are referenced." Its just one source cited - the NY daily news paparazzi item [4]. Thats the specualtive conclusion arrived at by the reporter. At no point was Spears, K-Fed or entourages interviewed. More voyeuristic speculation.
The wikipedia is not a scandal sheet. A lot of stuff can be taken from print and online sources but there is no imperative that we put it ALL in. Some restraint is needed here --Eqdoktor 09:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: To follow up, I think each news item entered into the Spears article should at least follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (news) or WP:NOTNEWS. To wit:

This page in a nutshell: Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact.

This applies within the context of Spears career/biography. --Eqdoktor 14:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • On your claim that I'm using weseal words on this talk page, what action are you calling for? Do you want me to go back and reword that sentence in the above thread? Would you prefer that I write it as "Most of the Press have noted that her behavior is different as of late, many callling it 'erratic'." and then give references to newsites that use the word "erratic" like https://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611849.shtml

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6127298.stm https://www.newszoom.com/search/latest/britney-spears/news/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=437118&in_page_id=1773 https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2007-03/03/content_818642.htm

  • Please clam down and reflect where this discussion is taking place. While I disagree that I'm using weasel words in this discussion, this is a talk-page and not the article itself. If you go back and read the guideline that you keep citing you'll see by the constant use of the words "articles" and "article" that this guideline is about them. I haven't put anything in the article except the POV tag for the entirety of this thread and the one above. I fully understand that you think inclusion of details in the article is POV, I disagree and await the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard to weigh in.
--Wowaconia 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
So noted - the link is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Britney Spears --Eqdoktor 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The claims of 666

The Feb. 5, 2007 claims for the marking 666 on her head has so far been made by only one magazine which Wikipedia has deemed a tabloid the story is at https://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/showbiz/showbiz1.shtml

So far The Rolling Stone and an Arizona newspaper are the only wiki-standard reliable sources reprinting the claim that I could find online: https://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/03/05/britney-needs-to-be-institutionalized-in-actual-institution/ https://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb//articles/0305spears-CR.html

I personally remain unconvinced of the verifiability of these claims, but certainly The Rolling Stone repeating the claims could have a large impact on her career. As this just began to be reported I think it is prudent to wait for more sources. If someone wants to cite it placing emphasis on Rolling Stone's involvement it would be hard to argue against inclusion. If someone else chooses to do so I remind them that any citation of this information must include references in the main article or it will be deleted as per Wiki-Standards.

--Wowaconia 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Wowaconia: American magazines are not the only reliable source for news. Contrary to popular belief, The world is not American. --Mister macphisto 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The two websites linked above uses the News of the World tabloid trash as the source of the "666" info. The News of the world tabloid is useless as a reference. Also note that:
  • Rolling stone link is an entertainment blog. Nothing journalistic about that. It references an Australian newspaper that in turn uses the News of the world tabloid source.
  • Azcentral link is an entertainment gossip site (relaxed journalistic ethics if any) that acknowledges it used News of the World as a source for the 666 allegation.
Unless the "666" allegation surfaces in anything like AP, Reuters, UPI or something useful like the New York Times (non blog or editorial) - it must be treated with a huge block of salt. --Eqdoktor 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Please note that I stated “I personally remain unconvinced of the verifiability of these claims… I think it is prudent to wait for more sources”. Currently the only new information on this topic was at X17 (which doesn’t qualify as a reliable source by wikistandards), who have come out against the claims at: https://x17online.com/celebrities/britney_spears/britneys_suicide_attempt_rumors_false.php As this appears to be an issue of dueling tabloids, I would again advise that inclusion of these claims on her wikipage is not warranted due to the scarcity of reliable sources.

Wowaconia 11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

False!!!!!!!!!!!!

Britney did not attempt suicide. It was confirmed that the rumours wer false —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.25.197.19 (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Career Hiatus in 2004? Dont think so.

I think the Career Hiatus and Family section needs to be changed to 2005-2006. Britney was very busy in 2004 so I dont understand that. She had 2 big hits, "Toxic" and "Everytime", she went on a very successful tour, debuted a very popular perfum and released a greatest hits album with a new single. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.171.42.13 (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, she never completed the tour. Herewego123 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

link removed

DECLARATION OF INTEREST: I co-write this blog.

Thanks, Philip (philip@sternthinking.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sternthinker (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Not in an encyclopedia, sorry—please read WP:EL. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears dance moves appear in World of Warcraft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IizzCWeQSAc

They are identical to those done by Britney Spears in one of her concerts and/or videos. I cannot name the exact video but its pretty much common knowledge thats where these came from... I would like to get this added to the article but its PROTECTED... Someone with authorization please add this.Species2112 08:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Keep up the good job cleaning the article--HW-Barnstar PLS 13:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's shrunk!

Why have you deleted stuff? the more information on a topic, the better! a long-winded page on Wikipedia? no such thing! someone interested in the article would be pleased! and if you're looking for a small piece of info, you should know how to use ctrl+F! It's shorter than Christinas now :(

SNL

"At 18, she was the youngest person in SNL history to have acting and musical performing duties on the same show, and remains the only woman to have done so."

Janet Jackson had acting and musical performing duties during the 03-04 season. I believe Jennifer Lopez did also.

Perhaps it should be edited to reflect that she was the youngest woman to achieve this, not the only woman. -- Sarz 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Misspelled "Featured"

Someone misspelled the word 'featured' on the section about her history. It is currently spelled "feautered". I don't know what feautered means, but it probably isn't the word the author was trying to use. The article is protected, and I'm not gonna log in and fix it, so someone else should. 151.151.73.167 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm from People Magazine. Can you please add a link in the external links section to our Celebrity Central Database at People.com ? It has a full biography of Spears (including a professionally researched timeline), the photo archive from People, and full-text links to all the articles about her which have appeared in People. The link is https://www.people.com/people/britney_spears. Thank you.

DBovasso 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No argument here; the page seems well researched and People has a good rep. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this suggestion. There's nothing wrong with People, but Wikipedia should not be endorsing/advertising commercial sites, nor should we welcome suggestions to use Wikipedia in such a manner. How does Wikipedia benefit from this? If we link Britney then we could link virtually any celebrity article (the same question is raised at Talk:Angelina Jolie) and before we know it Wikipedia becomes a vehicle by which People is advertised. Then, we'd have to fairly link to any other rival sites... I think it would be a huge mistake, and I also think it would contradict Wikipedia:External links#Links to be avoided - numbers 3 and 4, and also Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Rossrs 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
OTOH, virtually every reliable source Wikipedia uses is in some manner commercial, including news networks, books, magazines, etc. Artists' own sites are often commercial in nature. Something to ponder... :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL makes a clear distinction. Using a site as a source is one thing, but providing a link under "external links" without necessarily using the link as a source is entirely different - it's blatant advertising. The original post reads as a request to link, rather than an invitation and it doesn't offer anything to benefit WP which would be the main focus of the message if it came from a savvy marketer. I doubt its authenticity. A company like People has a highly professional, highly effective marketing department, and placing a couple of messages on some random talk pages doesn't exactly spell "professionalism" to me. Rossrs 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Upon reread, I concur. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason a lot of people like to put spam links into Wikipedia is that they think a link from a high traffic site like this will drive up their search engine rankings (eg: Google). The higher the search engine rankings, the higher they can charge for advertising on the website. I'd like to point out that putting links in Wikipedia articles will not affect search engine rankings: Since Wikipedia uses tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. So putting a People link here (or any other commercial link) in Wikipedia will not benefit the linked party.--Eqdoktor 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

2007: Time in rehab

This is a poor title. Personal struggles was much better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.171.42.13 (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. She is now out of rehab. So her "time in rehab" was only a part of the year. Was there any reason it was changed to begin with?--Agnaramasi 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
An editor insisted on changing it to "Rehab and recovery"; I changed that because there is no reliable source speaking to any "recovery" or from what. Let's just say I'm not adverse to the return of "Personal struggles"... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone just changed it to "Personal issues," which I think is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Children, marriages and divorce count as "personal issues" too. I am reverting back to "Personal struggles," as agreed.--Agnaramasi 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again a user has changed this headng to "2007: Life after rehab," which misleadingly suggests that she must have gone to rehab before 2007. I am reverting this edit and encouraging all users to bring the discussion here before unilaterally editing.--Agnaramasi 13:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal struggles is improper cause we don't know WHY she went to rehab and can't say shaving off your hair is indefinitely "struggling". Many women shave their heads off! She has since been doing better so you can't say that all of 2007 was bad to her!

I disagree. Now I have no interest in representing Spears as any more "struggling" than she is. But going to rehab is definitely a way of trying to deal with personal problems. People go to rehab only because they are struggling in some way with some personal problem(s). I think once we have some evidence that she has moved beyond these struggles in some way, i.e. that her career begins moving along again, or she keeps a low and/or stable profile for several months, I think that it would make sense to change the heading to "Rehab and recovery", or something along those lines. But as of now, the section is merely documenting her stint in rehab and the events leading up to it, and so the only justified title I can think of would be "personal struggles." Furthermore, I don't see why you think this title even reflects badly on Spears in the first place. A struggle implies an active process of trying to change something that is wrong, which is exactly the point of rehab. I would say "struggle" is adequate to both the reasons for her going to rehab and her actual time there. Other users seem to agree with this assessment.--Agnaramasi 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Length Concerns

This page is 51 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. Yakuman (数え役満) 10:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Spear's Political Opinions

I think the following was unnecessary and pov. It seems to be here just to show that she has no political opinion... It could maybe belong in a real, argumented section about Spears's political opinion, if one deems it necessary (which I am not sure it is).

In a September 2003 interview with Tucker Carlson of CNN, on the subject of the 2003 Iraq War, Spears said, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."[39] The footage of this quote later appeared in Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hellgi (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. This statement is quite well-known, and it is important that it be included in the article with a verifiable source and date. She is a notable person, and her political statements are therefore also notable. I also disagree with your characterization that the statement attests to her political apathy; it represents, rather, a full-fledged endorsement of George W. Bush and his foreign policies. Given Spears' fame, such endorsments can be very powerful and influential with respect to voters. Consequently, until such time as greater consensus is reached with other editors I am reverting back to the article as it was.--Agnaramasi 23:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I could agree with the fact the her opinion, as a notable person, matters; It seems to me though that this is out of place in the current section which talks about her musical carreer. Why not creating a subsection about her political opinion? That would make more sense to me, rather than dropping this in the middle of an unrelated section. Hellgi 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The quote is in a chronological section of her biography. It just so happens that c. 2003 she was still enjoying a successful career. Because the quote is also from that time, it is included in that section. Personally I think its fine as it is.--Agnaramasi 21:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Grammy Award-winning"

I removed "Grammy Award-winning" from the intro sentence in compliance with WP:NPOV, but I see that this was restored by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), who writes in his edit summary that it is a "defining characteristic for a singer and should appear prominently in the lead, not in adjectival form for a song". I'd like to know what reliable secondary sources corroborate the notion that Spears's Grammy Award win was a "defining" moment in her career, and how introducing her as "Grammy Award-winning" doesn't fall afoul of WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone, which states "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." Terms such as "Grammy Award-winning", even if factually accurate, imply a positive point of view of a subject. Extraordinary Machine 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you EM. Tony also reverted my edit; his reasoning being that most other grammy award winning musicians' articles start the same way. Myrockstar 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has been shortened way too much

There are several reliable sources and other venues of information that could (or have been previously added and REMOVED) be added to this article, but someone seems to be hellbent on keeping articles (this one, among others) "slim and trim" or something to th effect and its really getting annoying. They somehow feel that an extra paragraph would make the page "cluttered" or "messy".

This is WikiPedia, not WikiOpinion. The articles are NOT HERE TO LOOK PRETTY OR LOOK NEAT AS PER YOUR SAY. The articles are here for people to LEARN. Omitting valuable data in the name of "neatness" makes ZERO sense. Species2112 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's long enough for her career. Some areas could use a few more details, and one or two sections could be added but as it is now it covers most if not all of the major details in her life. And there is nothing wrong with neatness, compare it to Christina Aguilera which is long and cluttered. Most people get easily turned off with too much clutter and probably won't read past half the article. Myrockstar 04:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think scientific objectivity should be hindered by someone's personal opinion that more than 3-4 paragraphs in a subsection is "cluttered"... Sounds more like said person is too lazy to read. Someone who is sincerely interested in the article would appreciate every tidbit of information. Encyclopedic content isn't meant to be "in a nutshell"... apparently some people think it is.71.248.130.160 05:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think this article is "in a nutshell" then I'd hate to know what you would classify as a real article. Editors who care about their work and articles they contribute to should want to keep it as neat and organized as possible. Piling on fact after fact doesn't make it any more encyclopedic then keeping it short and to the point. Myrockstar 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as it was stated earlier that someone thinks Christina Aguilera's article is cluttered and messy... Someone else might consider it informative and robust. Not here to try and argue that short and to the point isn't good, I'm here to say that the people deleting factual information just because they think its "unncessary" need to consider that other people simply might not think so. All im saying is be considerate before you delete stuff in the name of "neatness" or some other irrelevant reason. Species2112 03:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this article is not short enough still as it can bear further edits stripping away the ridiculously detailed and over-wrought recounting of her life post 2004. Why does an encyclopedia article need to know about an off-hand remark on a chat show? Its all trivia. IMHO, it can all be summed up like this: Got married twice, met and married K-Fed, had a TV show, had 2 kids, and now divorced. Any further details just fails WP:NOTNEWS, in fact - even her recent rehab stint fails Wikipedia:Recentism. Thats not being encyclopedic - its just tabloid press with footnotes.
Recentism is the tendency by Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention. Established articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens, new articles are created on arguably flimsy merits, and the relative emphasis on (more or less) timeless facets of a topic which Wikipedia consensus had previously established is often muddled.
This article is approaching 51kb which exceeds the recommended guidelines as laid out in Wikipedia:Article size. Its becoming tiresome to read, stylistically clumsy and causes technical problems with certain readers. Don't be too surprised if we have WP:BOLD editors tightening the article up by removing extraneous tabloid details and making it a better Wikipedia encyclopedia entry. --Eqdoktor 07:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people just cant seem to see the light... Youre saying this article is too long, go look at World War I and World War II and then come back and TRY to complain about this article. Everything you are describing sounds like selective editing... Of all the articles on wikipedia that are WAY TOO LONG, you choose to sit around with a magnifying glass looking for ways you can strip Britney's article to nothing. It almost seems immature in its own stupid way, I take it you either don't like Britney or have a problem with people who like celeb stuff? Always seems to be a few people who come back to the SAME STUPID ARTICLE every day when there are thousands of other articles they could be looking at nitpicking... Apparently there are ulterior motives, and it just needs to stop in the best interest of Wikipedia. Species2112 05:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with those sympathetic to an inclusionist approach to this article. First, the idea that Wikipedia:Recentism justifies "bold" editors to delete large swaths of content that do not accord with their point of view of what constitutes "historical significance" is very mistaken. Boldness cannot be used to justify actions that clearly violate wp:consensus. WP:recentism is clear that removal of content must be carried out cautiously by consensus, not indiscriminately or unilaterally, especially given that there are editors with many different perspectives on what in this article may or may not count as historically important. Furthermore, history means many different things to many different people, and the plurality at the core of the narrativizing of history must be respected. I find user:Species2112's suggestion above that a single bold user could be the sole arbiter of what constitutes the threshold of historical significance for this article's content insulting to that plurality, and specifically, to the users who are voicing their concerns here right now. In any case, it is absolutely clear that any removal of sourced content must proceed according to wp:consensus.--Agnaramasi 06:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

2001–2003: Career achievements

This isnt that great of a title. I think it can be improved.

Would "career development" be better? And what, exactly, is the proble with the title as it is?--Agnaramasi 21:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a poor title. She already has developed her career before 2001 so there is no reason to write that. Soapfan06

Well development doesn't necessarily exclude previous development. 'Development' on its own can mean "further development."--Agnaramasi 03:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

She had a lot of good news career wise from 2001-2003. The top being another #1 album and voted the most powerful celebrity 2002. Spears needs a section about that AND her personal problems like the split with Timberlake. That was HUGE in her life. Soapfan06

Small font

What's with the small font on this page?

I don't recall seeing m/any other wiki pages with such a small font. It makes the whole article very difficult to read without changing browser settings.

Can it be changed perhaps?

Alism 18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Props to whoever changed this to a more readable font.

Alism 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Time of the year"

A lot of the dates on this article is mentioned using the 4 seasons. eg: Britney's new album is due to release in summer/fall of 2007. This system can be very confusing for people who lives in the southern hemisphere where the seasons are opposite to the northern hemisphere.

Probably using Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 would be better to avoid confusion. Q1 = january - march | Q2 = april - june | Q3 = july - september | Q4 = october - december

maybe you Wikikids could correct the typo in sentence 1 and render the second into English

Spears has sold over seventy-six million albums worldwide according to TIME magazine.[3] The RIAA ranks Spears as the eigth best-selling female artist in American music history having sold 31 million albums.[4] 2007: Personal struggles In January, Spears lost her aunt Sandra Bridges Covington after a long battle with breast cancer and with whom she was very close.[64] Perhaps ... Spears' aunt, Sandra Bridges Covington, to whom she was very close, died in January after a long battle with breast cancer. 122.167.130.135 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Britney_Spears/Archive_5&oldid=1047317082"