Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 6

message: Out of curiosity, could these be considered as "real" titles? If they are, I'd like to incorporate them in the article (though they may be a bit bizarre).
1. Omg is Like Lindsay Lohan Like Okay Like 
2. What if the Joke is on You 
3. Down boy 
4. Integrity 
5. Dignity
--69.67.198.62 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New album titles? 

message: Would a registered user please revert this article to the state shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britney_Spears&oldid=136510114 ?
Some joker seems to have created a Wikipedia account simply to mess with this article.
84.56.184.229 16:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Please wait until the final show is completed to add this into her bio, otherwise one 20-minute show just doesn't cut it.  I understand that it can all be tied up to her "return to music" but it isn't yet noteworthy enough Myrockstar 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The House of Blues show was completed at 10pm May 01 Pacific time. It is definitely noteworthy if you read the mainstream news. She performed under cover as the M&M's, that is extremely unusual for any high profile artist. I know you're goaltending this page & that's admirable, but I'm restoring the removed graphs. Robogun 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: While I am usually inclusionist about what goes into this article I think that a mention of each specific concert in specific detail (length, setlisting, venue, and other details) is way too much.  At the end of her "tour" this week, we could perhaps mention that that she did four concerts and list where.  All of this extra detail is disproportionate to the importance of the event.--Agnaramasi 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Robogun, what I meant is that we should wait until the final show in Las Vegas or wherever it might be is completed to add the whole thing into the article. Apparently her first two shows did consist of a "14 minute" routine, but she could change it for the next shows, or even cancel them. As that paragraph is right now it has zero encyclopedic content and reads more like an entry in someone's journal. Myrockstar 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you 100%.  I am just too exhausted to edit again, only to be reverted by seemingly endless numbers of rabid fans who refuse to discuss...--Agnaramasi 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  house of blues shows 

message: I think that the addition of a second 2007 section labelled "Return to music" is stylistically atrocious.  These silly concerts, which don't seem to be particularly successful in any case, are not a return to music. Only a substantial tour or the release of new recorded material might qualify..  Please, someone, change this back to how it was.--Agnaramasi 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other editors who have expressed their views on this matter are in agreement with me on this.  These shows do not qualify as a "return" or "comeback" to music and are not especially notable.  You have proven, by contrast, that you are intent on pursuing a narrow and POV agenda with this article, as shown by the ample warnings on your talk page.  Please stop changing this the headings when no one else is in agreement with you, and instead start respecting WP:CON.--Agnaramasi 15:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You continuously keep manipulating this article's content so it better reflects your WP:POV concerning Ms. Spears.  The ample warnings on your talk page attest to that fact unequivocally.  Obviously, it cannot be contested that these shows -- insignificant by comparison the enormity of her celebrity and commercial success, but certainly not nothing -- do not qualify as a "musical comeback," "return to music," or anything else to that effect.  I am not advocating they be removed from the article; what I find questionable, inappropriate, and increasingly frustrating is your continuous edits to the heading titles that push your POV.  Please stop it!--Agnaramasi 20:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What "the fans" want is not the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Only verifiable information from noteworthy sources is eligible.  To be precise, your interpretation of these concerts as a "comeback" or "return to music" simply is not reflected in the sources cited concerning those concerts, and therefore counts as original research.  Whereas, her trip to rehab was generally regarded in the press as the culmination of ongoing personal struggles. I do not care particularly much about Spears, but I do care about Wikipedia and ensuring that it remain trustworthy and neutral, which is something "fans" such as yourself either don't care about or don't understand with respect to this article.  As a person with very little invested personally in Spears' celebrity, but who actively contributes to a variety of Wikipedia articles, I am qualified to judge that three small, short and critically panned concerts do not qualify as a "comeback," in any sense of that word, and I am certain that other Wikipedians like myself would share that opinion.  There seems to be a consensus among editors that the concerts should be mentioned at least in the article but that, at present, any addition of a "comeback" or "return to music" to the heading title neither verifiable nor neutral.--Agnaramasi 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can find verifiable and notable sources with information about any upcoming albums, you are more than justified in adding it.  Obviously, these criteria exclude mere speculation.--Agnaramasi 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are enough pictures, and the looking great is you POV. Maddyfan 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, she is still having major problems.  Until anything happens otherwise, it'll stay.  She's still being blasted, and her behavior is still seen as creepy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.82.82.248 (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point exactly what kind of problems she is still having? Britney WAS full of problems before but now at least her concert is a really good re-start for her. TV News and magazines alike are commenting on her "new slim down body" and her concert made headlines with all signs poining towards a positive future for her. Oidia 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority are posting the exact opposite.  She looks a mess everyday.  People still believe she's on drugs.  Her family is speaking out against her.  She's leaving bizarre public comments about her father and her manager.  Her concerts are being blasted for lipsynching, which she always has done, and looking awful.  She stays for less than 15 minutes, with people extremely angry.  There's an MSNBC article that was beyond scathing of not just her, but her now limited fanbase.68.82.82.248 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, true, she does have lots of problems. But having problems like the ones you've described does NOT indicate that Britney is not returning to music. Lots of singers/actors have their careers co-existing with their scandals/problems. It's rather a common sight for celebrities to be on drugs, and they often do behave "unusually" when haunted by the media. Yes, her fanbase is decreasing, meaning she still has fans around the globe, there are fans that were excited and happy after seeing Britney's 15min concert - a journalist from a news program interviewed fans at the end of the concert and many of them said they very enjoyed the show. So what I'm saying is that her personal struggles can last forever but she IS definitely making a come back to music. The article for her next album has official confirmation from famous producers that they ARE working on her new album. And the fact that her "return to music" should deserve a section on its own is because it's making a significant impact on the entertainment industry, Her endorsed products, fans, herself and anyone who has enough interest in Britney to look her up on wikipedia. Oidia 11:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: She hasn't come back to music though.  Do mini shows a few times, does not make a return.  She is still struggling.  I understand what you're saying, but overall, her problems are still overshadowing everything.  Contribute though anything music related you want in the section, but really a sum up still is her personal struggles. 68.82.82.248 12:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning

message: britney spears was born in Kentwood, Louisiana. please please make the correction!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.79.158.217 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kentwood, Louisiana 

message: Of adding something with sources if it gets deleted anyway? How come so many artists have info on their upcoming albums on their main page but Spears does not? Biased?
I totally agree, there should deffinatly be a section on the main page about her working on her comeback album and I also think that the House of Blues Tour does warrent the heading "Return To Music" because what the hell else could it be. Yes it's not her official comeback, but it's still a return to music. When she makes her comeback the heading can be changed. Oh I also completely agree that it's biased many things get left out of Britney's page but not on other artists, I mean if Madonna was gone for 3 years then did a house of blues tour there would be no problem with calling that a return to music, but for Britney its a problem and Madonna along with numerous other artists all have a blurb on their main pages about the albums they are currently working on but Britney does not.(May 9th 2007)
:Read topic above. 68.82.82.248 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's still having major struggles.  You just don't start making section after section.  She's still really a mess. 68.82.82.248 07:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't even think you're aware of how to sign your name.  Don't tell me what I like.  The heading will just end up being removed.  You don't own the page.  Stop adding POV. Maddyfan 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not nice to new wiki users. Wouldn't it be nicer to teach them how to sign their name? Oidia 12:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the person has an attitude, and then another user, perhaps the same one, started using language when they didn't get what they wanted. Maddyfan 12:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point? 

message: The "public image" section of this article was deleted some time ago because it wasn't in a neutral POV. OK, it's difficult to write in a NPOV about Britney's image. BUT, like most news and featured articles, if we provide both sides, or even ALL sides of opinion, then it should be considered as a neutral POV. Hence we should bring back the "Public Image" section. With comments from fans, critics, the media, and any other opinions towards her image. Then the section will be neutral.
::OR
We could start a section on the article with the heading "Attitudes towards Britney Spears". In there we'll state the common attitudes given towards Britney from Fans, Critics, Media, Parent Groups, etc. Oidia 06:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's fine the way it is.  What you're supporting would be a disaster.  There is no way to do it with out it being POV.  68.82.82.248 07:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Public Image" - achieving NPOV 

message: I removed 'grammy award winning' from the opening paragraph of the article. A discussion on Christina Aguilera's talk page came to the conclusion that Christina has 'only' won five Grammys, which isn't noteworthy enough to put in the opening paragraph. In order to keep the articles uniform, clearly Britney's one Grammy isn't noteworthy enough for the opening paragraph either. SerenityX 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has already been a discussion about this.  In a two against one consensus, it was decided that it should be taken out of the first sentence, and I moved it to describe her song Toxic which was what won her the grammy. To SerenityX, what happens on Christina's page isn't of this page's concern or any other artists', just because others and myself have removed certain things around here doesn't mean we are going to go to Christina's page to remove them as well. The excuse that "Christina isn't noteworthy enough so why should Britney?" isn't good enough. The previous excuse that putting that on the opening sentence makes it seem POV was.   Myrockstar 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Grammy Award Winning' 

message: I haven't put anything of this into the main article yet because it's either speculation or probably not very relevant. Britney made a public thank you to her fans for writing encouraging messages in her official website. She is also having a concert in Florida as part of her "comeback plan". Last but not least, Famous magazine is stating that Britney is making a comeback to the music scene. They could be biased too so I haven't yet put anything into the article. Oidia 03:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the latter two items are relevent (or at least as relevent as what is presently included).  The website message, not so much.--Agnaramasi 14:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info 

message: In the main article on Britney spears, you've got her name wrong. Its supposed to be BRITNEY JANE SPEARS!
:Do you have a source for that? *Dan T.* 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing you added the parenthetical (career)... otherwise people might think you were a stalker! :-) *Dan T.* 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're thinking of "Billie Jean".... BsroiaadnTalk 08:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRITNEY'S FULL NAME! 

message: Hi. Is seems this article is in the category: English Americans, yet the only mention of England here concerns her grandmother. She definately wasn't born in England. Should we remove her from this category? Regards to all 195.137.96.79 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the list of Irish-Americans contains people who are there on the basis of their surname or religion or hair/eye colour.  Some are there because they have one or more Irish antecedants and fewer are there because they were actually born in Ireland.  So I look forward to seeing your IP address appear on thousands of other pages complaining about miscategorisation.... -- 62.25.106.209 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English American? 

message: The opening paragraph of the article states that Spears is known as an "author", yet I could find no reference in the article to any written material that she's produced (apart from the songs obviously, but that makes her a songwriter not an author). 
Could somebody clarify?
86.145.18.83 14:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author? 

message: The story now is that the drug tests Britney took before entering rehab were negative, which means she was clean when she shaved her head. I think that should be mentioned.
:You mean rumor. Maddyfan 13:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the same as her saying bashing a car with an unburela was all for a part in a movie? Amazing what drugs can do --MattyC3350 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug Tests 

message: I am concerned that an Amazon "guide" is being used as a source.  It badly fails WP criteria for WP:V and WP:RS.  If the Britney essay on Amazon is the work of "Mr. A Chocholko (London, England)" whose main claim to fame is that he is "Qualifications: student, 18-year-old Britney Spears Fanatic", then I suggest that we stick with Time, which we should be able to assume is the work of professional journalists. Rossrs 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazon as source

message: Shouldn't her ex-restaurant Nyla be in this article?
No, it closed in 2003...about a year after opening. No point. She had very little to do with management and that is why she said it was a failure. Soapfan06 16:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, her hands-on involvement in running the restaurant would certainly have improved its chances for success. ;-) Ribonucleic 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nyla 

message: :Image:Bj.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bj.jpg

message: I think her three different image periods should be icluded. The pre-2001 one (innocence and purity), 2001-2005 one (slutty and pervert) and 2006-present (post K Fed period). 213.240.234.212 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of image

message: It seems to me that the photo on the page header is getting seriously out of date, and is an unrealistic portrayal of the contemporary Britney.  Are there any public domain photos of her attacking cars with umbrellas, driving with her kids in her lap, ordering her hired thugs to beat up photographers, or wiping up dog crap with mutli-thousand dollar designer dresses?  (I realize that photos of her flashing bits of her private anatomy while climbing in/out of vehicles aren't appropriate)--64.201.38.62 13:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo at page header 

message: There's a mistake in the article about Britney. It says she was born in Kentwood, Louisiana, which is wrong. She was born in McComb, Mississippi, as her sister Jamie Lynn, but only raised in Kentwood, Louisiana before she moved to New York with her Mom Lynne and sister Jamie Lynn. I know this for sure! Caplauri 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual mistake 

message: Ivor Novellos are awarded to the composers of songs not their singers. Someone might want to remove this category. 212.140.167.98 12:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: Ivor Novello Award Winners

message: Can we really say that these sources are crediable and can we really use those sources and keep this article "non POV". I'm all for adding to the article but I see no reason for the tid bits about O.K. magazine nor really do we need the bit about Kentwood, Lousianna not supporting her anymore. All of these articles are biased and none of it has anything to do with Britney's career nor personal life. Most of all none of it is noteworthy nor is it fact. (We really don't know if Britney was even going to pose for O.K. Magazine it hasn't ben confirmed by her or any of her people that she had a photo shoot scheduled with them nor are there any reports from her people saying she was going to do a tell all with the magazine. As a matter of fact Britney has said on several occassions that she severed all ties with the said magazine, also there is no way of knowing that everyone in Kentwood dislikes Spears). So the question begs are we here to write a opinon peice on the woman or are we here to deliver a factual excerpt about the artist? Cause I see atleast two paragraphs in the bottom section that aren't at all neutral to the artist. I ask that they be removed- Skin...
:That was confirmed by OK! Magazine.  She never said that and the pictures are out there.  Her downfall is part of her page. Maddyfan 12:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloids and gossip columns as sources for "factual information" 

message: it should be renames to something like 'Rehab and 5th Album' or 'Breakdown and 5th album'
I think 'Personal Struggles' then a total seperate section 'Return to music'.   --Jak3m 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename personal struggles and career activities. 

message: Britney has hired a new manager to steer her career comeback to the right direction.  Oidia 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed not to be true by E! News. Maddyfan 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New manager 

message: It should focus on her music career and achievements, deleting all unreliable sources and biased info.--Jak3m 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like? Maddyfan 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article need to be cleaned up  

message: ===Childhood and discovery===
This will be information of her musical career before Baby One More Time. Music career info ONLY, nothing about her personal life.
===Early commercial success===
Baby one more time album and oops i did it again album. And any other music career activites like tours and concerts. Once again, do not mention anything about her personal life.
===Career development===
Info on the Britney album, In the Zone album, Greatest Hits album. Music career information only
===Future plans===
Yes I know that there will be objections of this particular sub section. But if she does release a new album it will be written here.
I agree that this should be done.--Jak3m 16:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Music career

message: Yes I know that there will be objections of this particular sub section. But if she does release a new album it will be written here.
I agree that this should be done.--Jak3m 16:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future plans

message: This is where you'll put the information about where she's born, where she's raised, her relationship with Justin, her 55 hour marriage, Kevin Federline, the 2 childern, divorce, rehab, etc.
So in conclusion, this is what I really think would be benefit to this article, and potentially get it into GA status. The main thing is to separate the informations of her music career from the info of her personal life, because most people would recognize Britney as a singer. What do you think? Oidia 12:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the page is about the person, not just music.  Check anyone else's page. Maddyfan 12:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key here is to section the article into her recording/singing career and her personal life. Mixing her music career in with her personal life makes the article look very messy. That's one of the reason this article is rated B. Looking at the article for Kylie Minogue, it's sectioned into her recording career, her film and TV career, and her image and celebrity status. Why do I want to model Britney's article after her article? Because that article is rated FA status. One of the to-do thing for this article is to prepare it for FA status. The current shape is still far from GA. I strongly suggest that we have different sections of this for her music career and her personal life. Oidia 23:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: thats what i meant, it is in dire need of cleaning up.--Jak3m 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Life

message: This is what needs to be done.
the order should be.
MINI BIO,<BR>
CHILDHOOD,
PERSONAL LIFE GOES HERE INCLUDING 'PERSONAL STRUGGLES' 'MARRIGES' 'CHIDREN'
-MUSIC CAREER-
DISCOVERY,
EARLY COMMERCIAL SUCCESS,
MATURITY,
GREATEST HITS WITH ACHIEVEMENTS,
RETURN TO MUSIC.
-DISCOGRAPHY-
ALBUMS/TOURS/SINGLES
-FILMOGRAPHY / TV-
FILMS AND DVD GOES HERE INSTEAD OF ^THERE^
-PRODUCTS-
-FRAGRANCE-
the end.--Jak3m 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HERES THE DEAL 

message: OK, this article is getting into really good shape. Some major overhaul has been done to the article, but every effort is being made to improve it until it reaches FA status. I think the final things that need to be done are the phrasing and expression of sentences and paragraphs. This article is not far from GA. Oidia 03:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the article should be shaped according to Gwen Stefani article. I feel Gwen Stefani is a perfect article to be followed. If this article is also written in the same way, FA won't be too far. Luxurious.gaurav 06:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not add more images.  Even with owned images, there is a limit.  We don't need three billion of them. Maddyfan 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article looking good

message: She had a very sad time, maybe in a few years if she feel like it she could write a book (in-depth autobiography) on what happened to her...
70.55.114.188 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 

message: and she was RAISED in Kentwood.--Jak3m 12:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, she was born in McComb, check the links   Oidia (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britney Spears was born in McComb 

message: The Oops!... I Did It Again World Tour began in the summer of 2000. Please do not indicate dates using summer or winter or spring or autumn. It gets very confusing for people living in the other hemisphere. Oidia (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DO NOT use the 4 seasons for dates 

message: I added the Allure magazine cover to the 'Return to music' section, but i don't know about copyright and stuff, can someone help me.
I think its an image which goes well with 'Return to music' as its her first photoshoot in years and so on. --Jak3m 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone can find a copy of the 'before' picture, it could go in the Adobe Photoshop article.--Wee Charlie 16:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: we need an administrator to block these vandals saying shes died.--Jak3m 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRITNEY ISNT DEAD! STOP VANDALS 

message: What an incredible name... Is there any source ? Hektor 19:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? Oidia (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Shannon Funk]]

message: According to Reuters Britney Spears Elizabeth Arden Fragrances are still selling extremely well. 
http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN1638990120070817
U.S. cosmetics company Elizabeth Arden Inc. (RDEN.O: Quote, Profile, Research) reported better-than-expected profit for its fiscal fourth quarter on Thursday, helped by sales in international markets and demand for its fragrances.
Quarterly sales at Arden, known for its namesake and Britney Spears perfumes, rose 28 percent to $242.7 million, driven by new fragrance brands and higher sales in global markets.
In addition to strong demand for Britney Spears fragrances, the company cited success with a perfume named for novelist Danielle Steel, saying it was a leading brand for Mother's Day at retailers J.C. Penney Co.
Skinwalker03 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued Perfume success 

message: I think we should chance the years active. I mean Britney was on tv in the early ninetees for mikey mouse. Doesn't that count as being active?
:I would think so. She was in Mickey Mouse club starting in 1993  per IMDB.--Sandahl 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years Active? 

message: I think it should be added to the "personal struggles" section that Spears has been largely - or at least intermittently - without a publicist or manager for some time.  This fact puts her bizarre public behaviour better in context.--Agnaramasi 20:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No manager or publicist

message: After all her many antics, what is it about Britney Spears that's so hot? It's her getting involved in a wild and topless romp with a hot young boy toy in a spa at a Los Angeles hotel. 
The train wreck, as if she could never have enough of the many publication she's received lately, sent a shock to public worldwide with the appearance of her topless photos while making out with college student Matt Encinas in naked romp in a spa at Los Angeles' Standard Hotel. 
While you can enjoy the shocking pictures here, the 25-years-old Matt is keen to tell you on what happened between them during the racy game of topless truth or dare. 
Matt was quoted by Us Weekly as saying he was invited by Spears to a late-night private pool party at the Standard Hotel in Los Angeles upon his appearance as one of the extras in her latest music video for her comeback single "Get Back". The other extras also got invited as well. 
There "Britney was drinking Mojitos and Jack Daniels. She was the first one to undress, and then everyone else followed. I turned around and saw that she was topless and she had fake tattoos of flowers on her nipples from the shoot. Her assistant said Britney wanted to make out with me," so said Matt. 
Then he went on saying, "Britney straddled me and put her legs around me. I was feeling her breasts and kissing her on the neck. Her body was very nice. It was sexual and sensual kissing. She is a phenomenal kisser. I was dared to get naked and get out of the pool and walk as though I was on a catwalk in a fashion show. Britney was laughing really hard." 
A source in the know also added, "At one point Britney was simulating sex with him, putting on a really hot show." 
That's not all, Matt claimed Spears invited him back to her hotel suite and tried to seduce him. "I went in and found Britney lying on the bed with her knees up and just a pair of pink panties on. She was looking like she was ready - and I wanted to finalize it," the young guy revealed. Matt, however, didn't stay there for the night as Spears had requested him to because his friend collapsed and the singer's bodyguard told him to take him home.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Where dead angels lie (talk • contribs). 
Riiight.... If you want it  added, get a source.--Jak3m 13:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Britney having sex with a college student?

message: I wonder why the incidents relative to her July 2007 interview with OK! (erratic behaviour, ruining designer clothes, leading OK! to break their usual policy of publishing only positive celebrity profiles) can be mentioned in the article OK! but not in this article. OK! Magazine Prints Potentially Damaging Interview with Britney SpearsHektor 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the long-run, the OK interview simply will not be notable and will certainly be removed.  It really is a non-story.  Also, OK magazine certainly is a tabloid.  What other kind of publication would you call it?--Agnaramasi 01:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is absolutely staying.  IT WAS AN OFFICIAL INTERVIEW.  What happened adds to her personal life and behavior.  OK is like every other magazine including People.  They do official interviews. Maddyfan 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Her eyes rolling in the back of her head, not coherent, and stealing thousands in clothes and jewelry not to mention her coming in and out of the bathroom with a different personality-- yes, it is relevant.  They publicly said that she needs help. Maddyfan 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to make clear as well - it is not appropriate to use a different source (in this case, TMZ) to discuss an article in a magazine. What TMZ says OK says is immaterial. The only relevant information would have to come directly from OK.  Incidentally, TMZ is even more of a gossip site than OK.  Having said all that, I agree with Agnaramasi that this is a non-notable article.  Risker 03:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree and I will be adding it back in permanently. Maddyfan 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just keep reverting the article to get your way.  You need to respect the community's consensus, which is that the OK interview is not notable and its account of events is not reliable. Also, if you revert the article once more, I believe you will be in violation of WP:3RR.--Agnaramasi 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2007 interview with ''OK!''