Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 5

message: Is "Can You Handle Mine?" another album???
http://alexpolanco.wordpress.com/2006/09/17/britney-spears-can-you-handle-mine-2006/
http://www.torrentz.com/3bdb8d871f2edb8ca7f409b67fc40bd4fb8e4f63
:No that looks more like a bootleg to me. Myrockstar 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Albun

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title: britney shaving her dome

message: Is Britney Catholic? If so, she might've gone wild as a run-up to Lent.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LMAO. She's not Cathlolic, however. She's Jewish, under that Kaballah crap. Bigman17 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Britney's religion

message: 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 []. -An anonymous former editor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.72.124.173 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AHL club offer 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A reminder to all editors

message: 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)
replies: text: Please refresh your browser cache—that vandalism already was removed from the article. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britney is not dead 

message: Is it true she attempted suicide? Toajaller3146 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Wowaconia 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicide Attempt?

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Sex and the City Appearance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Addiction? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Seriously

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: We Started The Public Image Section For A Reason

message: 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)
replies: text: Then what is relevant?  It's her life.  It's concise.  It's been here for years. Downdown723 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye its a "B" at best now - too much fanboi/anti-fan voyeurism and stalking talk. --Eqdoktor 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well now what do you recommend we do to put it back on GA or FA? - Myrockstar 17:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  GA Delisting 

message: Amended this to just female.  Male is held by Eminem 60.234.242.196 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggest selling album by a male/female for one weeks sales

message: 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 --Paganpoetry005 15:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that. Myrockstar 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Happened? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  False!!!!!!!!!!!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, she never completed the tour. Herewego123 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career Hiatus in 2004? Dont think so. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not in an encyclopedia, sorry—please read WP:EL. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about an External Link to the following blog entry, describing a homeless man's opinion of the recent news of her public behaviour  

message: http://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)
thread_title:  Britney Spears dance moves appear in World of Warcraft 

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  SNL 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misspelled "Featured"

message: 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 http://www.people.com/people/britney_spears. Thank you.
DBovasso 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument here; the page seems well researched and People has a good rep. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Upon reread, I concur. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 nofollow 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)
thread_title:  Link to full biography and articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  2007: Time in rehab 

message: 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)
thread_title: Length Concerns

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spear's Political Opinions 

message: I removed "Grammy Award-winning" from the intro sentence in compliance with WP:NPOV, but I see that this was restored by , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Grammy Award-winning" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well development doesn't necessarily exclude previous development.  'Development' on its own can mean "further development."--Agnaramasi 03:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2001–2003: Career achievements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Small font 

message: 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)
thread_title: maybe you Wikikids could correct the typo in sentence 1 and render the second into English