Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Failed FA

As you can see, this article was not promoted to FA. Click here for details. The following is a summary of the major problems pointed out by reviewers:

  • The article is not stable due to the constant news coverage.
    • We can't really do anything about this problem.
  • Certain links are dead.
    • We be nice to see more editors actively involved in improving the article in these aspects. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs Section on Media Coverage

The media's behavior in covering Britneys problems is part of the story now.

The media has behaved irresponsibly-- and with cruelty-- in covering this young ladies personal problems. That vicious coverage itself is a story that needs to be included in the article.

Spears certainly has problems, but so do millions of other young people who are not publically crucified as she has been by so many horrible reporters and news editors-- The news industry needs to be cleaned up and reporters and editors who feed off of the personal problems of celebrities should be shown the door.

That's my personal opionion-- but as far as this article goes-- the media has made itself a part of the story-- and so a secton on the media treatment of Spears (including many instances of unprofessional abuse by reporters) should also be included in this article.

Sean7phil (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The media will do this to any celebrity, its to be expected. If she wanted to get rid of it then she should try harder to not be so outlandish and ridiculous when she appears in public... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.61.145 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the media (and previous versions of this article) have gone overboard in covering Spears. There are many celebrities who have faced similar difficulties and yet you might only hear of their problems very occasionally in rare personal biography covereage-- And even so, with most of the lurid details left out. The overfocus on her problems of late is a media phenomenon, not an extension of Spears private difficulties.

Sean7phil (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

britney spears, argentian certificacion

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.61.74 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding contact information to external links

Hello,

I just posted an external link to Britney's contact information page on Top Synergy's website.

Initial contact information is obtained (with written permission) from Contact any Celebrity database. Then, we constantly maintain contact information as follows:

  1. Updates and additions according to members' experience and personal information;
  2. Auditing addresses to comply with postal requirements;
  3. Adding editorials such as ownership of production, management, and public relations outfits, etc.

What I'm basically asking is if this information is considered by you material to Wikipedia users and guidelines, and if you encourage us to go ahead and post such information for other famous people as well?

Sincerely, Shlomo Tommer The Top Synergy Group

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Midas touch (talk • contribs) 05:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And just how does this meet the external links guidelines?? I'm having a hard time on that count... and having written consent from this database about adding the link to Wikipedia is not the same as having written consent from the people mentioned on the database to having their contact info put up for all the world to see. On top of that, I'm quite sure there's a conflict of interest here with regards to your advocacy of the link... Tabercil 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The Synergy Group continues to spam Wiki articles with links to their site. He's bneen asked to stop more than once. I'm deleting the link he added above.

Associated Acts

Recently I added "The New Mickey Mouse Club" as an accociated act in the infobox. I'm just wondering why it was removed? It IS an associated act.. If other artists can have people who they duet with considered an "associated act", then surely a group of which Britney Spears was a member of should be as well.

Fergie has "Kids Incorporated" as an associated act of hers.. how is this any different?

Save-Me-Oprah 08:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Blackout

If the section is called Return to Music why on earth was it added that her album fell 70% in its second week? Does Carrie Underwood have that in her section? utterly pointless. Soapfan06 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that "Return to Music" is a bad heading for this section. Increasingly, it becomes evident that "Failed comeback", "Career collapse", or "Trainwreck" would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.38.62 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you guys. That information is important for the album. With it says 70% decrease of sale it does mean it's a commercial flop. Well that's my opinion. And yeah the chart performance of the Blackout is missing.
Nemo24 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What else shouldn't it be called that? 2007 was her Return to Music, along with other things.

ShadowRanger 8:45 P.M. November 27, 2007 (CST)

I agree with Soapfan and ShadowRanger. Disagree with Nemo and 64.201.38.62. For consistency within this article, there is no mention of "2nd week sales" for her 4 previous albums. Hence the 2nd week sales figure for Blackout is removed. And the release of this album is return to music as numerous sources have cited it as being her "comeback". Oidia (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oidia: There is no mention of 2nd week sales for her previous albums because they were sufficiently consistent with preceding sales, i.e., the albums charted well. They were a success. I would have to say that the major plummet of Blackout after the second week marks the album as a commercial flop. Sale figures in this case are the main proof that the album tanked, so they are factual and relevant. I fail to see how painting a rosier picture of her current status is at all helpful or informative. This is not a fansite, maybe some people should remember that. And I'm not saying that it should be written "commercial flop" verbatim or anything. How about "however, sales were not on par with her previous efforts" or something of the sort? The life of a popstar rates according to record sales, after all. And if it applies to Carrie Underwood, then so be it, put the relevant numbers up. 72.0.211.40 (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. According to the sales trajectory in this version of the Oops!... I Did It Again article, the 2nd week sales of the album dropped by more than 56% (sales trajectories were later removed from all articles). Hence, I disagree that a big plummet in the second week of sales would classify an album as a "commercial flop", since the Oops! album is considered a commercial success despite the sharp drop in sales in the 2nd week. I would also disagree that the article is a "rosier picture of her current status". Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Although I do agree with you that something along the lines of "Blackout is not as successful as her previous albums" is a good addition to that section. Oidia (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Total number-one hits in WW

Worldwide, there's been a mistake, she had 8 number-one hits. We can see it but at the end when we see "Total number-one hits" in Worldwide, we see 7 instead of 8... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.219.112.11 (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

THEY NEED TO ADD PIECE OF ME TO NUMBER ONE HITS IT IS #1 IN THE IRISH SINGLE CHARTS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.34.181 (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Personal Struggles

Why was that section removed, that is a big part of her life and it needs to be noted.

ShadowRanger 8:45 P.M. November 27, 2007 (CST)


Given the overfocus and abuse of these issues by (some) earlier writers of this article (as well as the media in general), I support the new format. Too much was made in this article (and in other press coverage as well) of her personal issues.

Many celebrities and many non-celebrities have had similar difficulties at one point or other in their lives-- Yet the degree of focus on Spears private difficulties in earlier versions of this article was unnatural-- and had crossed the line into scapegoating.

Consequently I wholeheartedly support the new article format.

Sean7phil (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Body Doubles

I think the piece of the "Return to Music" section that says "She also began using body doubles in her videos" should be taken out. The only video she's been reported to use a body double in was for "Piece of Me" and the pictures from that video that have been released have included MANY body doubles who are part of the storyline of the video, not to make Britney's body look better. Plus, it's just not anything that important. It should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.66.36 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

COMPLETELY AGREE, its RIDICULOUS, if this is not taken out by now I WILL get many people to object & discuss this, so you better change it oh & PS- It was never proven and National Enquirer/Perez Hilton/US Weekly are not reliable sources

Official Britney Spears Wallpaper Contest

Does anyone have an objection to linking to this Britney Spears Wallpaper Contest from the Britney page while voting is still live? Thanks for your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smogqueen (talk • contribs) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find the answer would be yes, there would be objections. If I'm wrong, apologies, but I can't see what that link should be here. At the very most it could be on the page pertaining to the album in question MrMarmite (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Spears is NOT a songwriter

Britney Spears is NOT a songwriter at all. Just because she has co-written some of her songs does not make her a songwriter. Oops I forget again (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. By co-writing songs that have been released and charted would qualify her as a songwriter. Oidia (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nor is she an author, at least to the level that it should be part of the description of who she is or what she does. Mark Twain is an author; Oprah Winfrey is a talk show host; Britney Spears may be all the other things listed, but she is not an author. rich (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Britney co-wrote many of her songs, including "Everytime", she IS an author, she wrote multiple books, so grow up and stop trying to limit her because you personally don't like her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.235.119 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are A LOT of authors out there...pretty much anybody who wrote anything. For example, I wrote a short story back in high school and my graduate dissertation was over 200 pages, but I am no author. Britney Spears is not notable for her literary contributions therefore shouldn't be listed as an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.52.202 (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Does not matter if her contributions are questionable. Personally I think her artistic quality is questionable. But if she wrote or co-wrote songs, she is a songwriter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.150.1 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If she's got a writing credit on some of the songs on her CDs, she's a songwriter. Suggesting otherwise would be original research, despite whatever you may personally think of her artistic integrity... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


I don't think she is a "real" songwriter like most, but if she receives an ASCAP royalty for a song, she is, by definition, a songwriter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.108.124 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "1999-2001" in "Personal life"

There is a problem with reference used in that section, it appears that the web page have been changed to something that is irrelevant to the information that it is citing. ref 99 and ref 100 (both links to the same web page) is now just a photo gallery. I will be doing some major changes to that section soon. And find better links to cite the info. Oidia (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears sex appeal

This article should include Britney's sex symbol status. After all, she's well-known for flaunting her sexuality in every medium possible; music videos, promo pictures, live performances etc. The Kylie Minogue article mentions that Kylie is one of this generation's most recognized and identifiable sex symbols. Spears included. Ayzia (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Right now I can't be bothered finding reliable sources. Would you mind doing it? Oidia (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Do I have to find sources? The Kylie article doesn't site any sources in its opening paragraph. Ayzia (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason that it is not cited in the lead of Kylie Minogue's article is because her being a "sex symbol" is fully explained in the article's main body with citations. So basically, if we want to add "sex symbol status" in Britney Spears's lead, we first need to explain it further in the main body with full citations, and then we can add it to the lead. Oidia (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Dang! No kiddin! I'd love to Gitelmesomeofdat! (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

It would be wonderful if we could find any recent image, one from the past few years. нмŵוτнτ 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

britney spears, pop icon

maybe we could put the term "pop icon" along with "singer, dancer, songwriter" etc...I mean, take a look at those lists: http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/11/12/story121067.asp http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/the_greatest/68029/episode.jhtml

I can answer all those questions VH1 asked:

- Do they pass the one-name test? if I say britney, who comes to your mind? - Can you dress up as them for Halloween? http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Britney-Spears-Costume-for-Halloween - Did they blaze a trail in pop culture? yes. navel piercing, low jeans. - Did they create a signature character in pop culture? a lot! baby one more time and oops outfits, vma snake performance, sunglasses with starbuks following her needed refreshing beverage she knows and loves cake and lots of it while being chased by paparazis... - Can you quote them, or their character, in 10 seconds or less? "oops, I did it again" - Did society imitate their sense of fashion? Hairstyle? already did - Did “SNL” create a sketch satirizing them? yes - Did someone write a song about them? cry me a river, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_Afraid_Of_Britney_Spears_(single), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_From_Barcelona - Was or is there merchandising or paraphernalia that bears their image? pepsi, her dolls, go go tea etc - Can they be connected to Kevin Bacon? Britney Spears was in Pauly Shore Is Dead (2003) with Sherri Shepherd Sherri Shepherd was in Beauty Shop (2005) with Kevin Bacon

plus, if she died today, she would be as big as princess diana or marilyn monroe (I'm not overreacting, you know it's true)

AND change that baby one more time picture! it's not real! it's an android sent back from the future to discredit the queen of pop that is Britney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.129.127 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking or at least insane. lol.Maddyfan (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears deserves to have bad things to happen to her because she has forsaken the LORD that is JESUS CHRIST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.245.22 (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first writer, and Britney does not deserve bad things, your horrible & don't even know her. I know her; I know her very well- she lives in a small hole in my Frech Dresser. Currants! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.235.119 (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Britney 2004 knee injury

Her knee injury should be mentioned. After all, she was forced to cancel the remaining North American leg of her Onyx Hotel Tour.

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/britneyspears/articles/story/6121968/britney_injures_knee

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,652994,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayzia (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned. Months after her Las Vegas marriage, Spears embarked on "The Onyx Hotel Tour", which was cancelled in June, after Spears injured her knee during the filming of the video for the single "Outrageous". Oidia (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Uh shouldn't there be a section in the article title Controversy? Instead of trying to break down her personal life into prettied-up sections as to minimize the controversies surrounding her? Panda

Controversy indeed! Non-stop news coverage. Tonight...her house didn't catch fire, she was taken to the hospital to undergo alcohol and drug tests and to have a psychiatric evaluation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.13.104 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For most of the article, it is sectioned chronologically. An individual section titled "Controversy" is given undue weight to media tabloids and gossip and would not satisfy WP:NPOV since those "controversial events" make up a small portion of her entire life. Besides, a lot of the materials in the Personal life section are already controversy surrounding her. Oidia (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


"Life & Style magazine reports..."

They're not exactly Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists when it comes to unimpeachability. If they're the only ones currently reporting this - as they so proudly claim - the reader shouldn't have to check the footnote to see the slenderness of the foundation this report currently rests on. Ribonucleic (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Not so much too short, but doesn't seem to represent the rest of the article evenly. NicM (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

Britney hospitalized

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,23010438-10388,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeky cheeky touch (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy rumors

Shouldn't this also be added to the section? After all, there were rumors. Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability (see WP:V, not rumours. Many a star has been rumoured to be pregnant, it is not notable (see WP:NOTE} enough for a section and further violates WP:CRYSTAL. KellyAna (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Why can't non-cool people edit the Britney Spears entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.201.149 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Registering an account is easy, fast and free. Although you'll have to wait for 4 days after you've registered an account to edit this semi-protected article. You are very welcomed to edit, but editing needs to be done in line with these policies and guidelines:
Oidia (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "Nervous Breakdown" should be removed

"Nervous breakdown" is a non-medical word, and is very derogatory toward people with mental illness. This is found at the end of the introduction. I'd do it myself if the page wasn't locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.67.28.35 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks, it's been removed. You should think about creating an account so you can edit locked articles. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
How is "nervous breakdown" derogatory? 68.36.214.143 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
From wikipedia's own article Nervous breakdown, it says "Mental breakdown (also known as nervous breakdown) is a non-medical term used to describe a sudden, acute attack of mental illness such as depression or anxiety. When used in common social discourse, the term often has pejorative connotations." Oidia (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
A firm diagnosis would be preferable; unfortunately, none appears to be being made public. Recurrent Brief Reactive Psychoses in a repeatedly thwarted Narcissist is the most likely.


Discrimination against people with mental illness was certainly an undercurrent in earlier versions of this article-- as well as the media phenomenon that errupted around her personal difficulties.

Sean7phil (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Section naming - Personal difficulties or Personal struggles

Hello and attention to all editors.

We need to build a consensus on whether that particular section under "Personal life" should be named:

  • 2007-2008: Personal difficulties

or

  • 2007-2008: Personal struggles

or

  • If you think there is an even better title, please suggest it here and we'll discuss about it.

This issue was brought up in my talk page, and followed onto Yakofujimato's talk page. I support the title of "Personal struggles", Yakofujimato support the title of "Personal difficulties". Please give us your thoughts. Thanks. Oidia (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we already tortured her enough, without adding details about her personal life to ANOTHER webpage? I, for one, think that we should stick to her career, and stuff like that... I mean, yes, she makes bad choices, but so do a zillion billion other people. This isn't a news site; let's just leave her personal life alone.

Well, the article is named "Britney Spears" not "Britney Spears (only the positive things)". I don't really think the point of Wikipedia is to gloss over things that her fans think would taint her image. She has done many things that have made it into the news. For example, my page would be very small were it to be made. I have done little that has made it into a newspaper or that anyone would care to know about. She, on the other hand, is in the limelight. If she were a little more careful about what she does in public there would be a lot less stupid stuff known about her. If it's newsworthy, true, and relevant we should consider adding it to her page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.117.66 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

More on Personal difficulties or Personal struggles

I do not think it is necessarily a matter of which title is "better". Does "better" in this context mean that more contributers/readers prefer one title or the other? If so, that is simply not encyclopedic, and it is more akin to a the wording on a Britney fan site, or a tabloid like the National Enquirer.

The word 'struggle' is defined in the dictionary as:

1. to contend with an adversary or opposing force.

2. to contend resolutely with a task, problem, etc.; strive: to struggle for existence.

3. to advance with violent effort: to struggle through the snow.

4. (of athletes and competitors) to be coping with inability to perform well or to win; contend with difficulty: After struggling for the whole month of June, he suddenly caught fire and raised his batting average 30 points. –verb (used with object)

5. to bring, put, etc., by struggling: She struggled the heavy box into a corner.

6. to make (one's way) with violent effort. –noun

7. the process or an act or instance of struggling.

8. a war, fight, conflict, or contest of any kind.

9. a task or goal requiring much effort to accomplish or achieve.

With that in mind, I do not believe that anyone here has firsthand, corroborated knowledge that Britney Spears fits any of those definitions, or that she views her difficulties as "struggles". In this context the title is being posted simply because a number of posters view it as a "better title" without actually taking into consideration the term "personal struggles" is:


1) not used accurately in this particular context.

2) the title is lurid, sensationalist, tabloid like, and melodramatic, but is not accurate, nor encyclopedic.

3) that a number of people "like the title" is a matter of complete irrelevancy in this context. If this were a published encyclopedia, it is unlikely that a description such as this would be used.


The word I would use to describe the title would be hyperbole. Hyperbole is defined as:


1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.


2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.


The wording in wiki entries are determined by guidelines, not by popular demand.

(Yakofujimato (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

It doesn't really matter now. Since the decision made is to not have a specific title at all. Just the date. In terms of "popular demand" you've mentioned, the majority of Wikipedia's policies are made from consensus. Consensus based on policies are also what shapes an article and when making editoral decisions. Most editors here at the RFC has indicated that "struggles" is not lurid, nor sensationalist, nor tabloid like, nor melodramatic, nor inaccurate, nor unencyclopedic. Nevertheless, the current title, without a textual description is probably the best choice we have. Oidia (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Most editors have indicated???!!! I just posted the possible definitions of the word 'struggle' and not one came close being accurate in regards to the article. So I must surmise that "most editors" must mean those that like the title like you do.

And if it was such a "good title" why is it that it is no longer being used?

Oinda, I appreciate and respect your view on this, but simply put you are wrong. How can you say that it is "not inaccurate" when the definition is posted and simply does not fit??

Your logic seems to be that since a group of people believe something, it must be true. You can get "most editors" (in the case of Britney Spears, many could be elementary school aged fans of hers, and hardly the most educated or expert).

Why don't you (slowly) re-read the definition of the word 'struggle' and then explain how that applies to Britney?

I look forward to your response! {24.62.108.124 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}

The consensus below never said that "struggles" is "such a good title". It suggests that struggles is "just slightly better" than difficulties. It also suggests that leaving the title out is the most fitting, and that's what we've done in this article. Please read the comments here at the RFC. And please read through wikipedia's policy of consensus. A RFC is not "getting a group of her fans/friends to help support a point". Please read WP:RFC for more information. Two users below, plus myself, have indicated that the definition of "struggles" fits in with Spears's current situation more. The only user that has indicated that "difficulties" is more fitting to her current situation is you. And once again, according to wikipedia's policy of consensus building, struggles (and its definition) comes slightly closer to Britney Spears than difficulties. Last but not least, remember when I used the reason "the title personal struggles has been in this article for more than a year." In the lead of WP:consensus, it says "In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." Hence it goes further to prove that struggles is a better term. Thank you. Oidia (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Charts - Number 1 - Ireland

Shouldn't we include the Irish charts in the number 1 chart section as they are as relevant as the other charting countires stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.180.158 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can source it, i don't see why Germany should be and Ireland shouldn't. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the Irish discography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.162.147 (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears moving to Pakistan?

Should we add this info in the article?. Here is the link [2]. It says Britney spears is going to convert to islam and going to settle in pakistan. Not sure if this is true. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Spears is already having a hectic life down here in Hollywood and she just dropped Kabbalah, so I don't know how in the world she's going to survive in Pakistan if she really is going there. ― LADY GALAXY 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel very sad for her. According to the sun she is going to fake death and then convert to islam, after that settle in pakistan and be married to a man named Adnan Ghalib and later have a new life. I think she will change her name too. One thing i don't understand is how she is going to fake her death. She has audience everywhere. I just wish this things are not true. Any idea cutie pie :P. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]
That article is about the "rumor" of Britney moving there. And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oidia (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Adnan Ghalib is not going to marry Britney Spears for the very simple reason that he is already married. [3]. Wikipedia must be based on facts and there must be no mention of her latest fling in the article unless she does something very public like actually running off with him.

Tovojolo (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Islam permits men to have up to four wives, doesn't it? And it allows divorce, right? Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It is against the law in the USA to have more than one wife. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hence the move to pakistan....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.61.145 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No one honestly believes she's moving to Pakistan, do they?! No, we shouldn't add the info - it's not even mildly realistic. Fooglemaster (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I add this externa link yes or no

http://britneyspearssexyvideos.blogspot.com/

AWARDS

Please is necesary add one section for music awards, actress awards, discography awards... by year. Is confirmed she raised in Kentwood, Louisiana as a Southern Baptist.??? Need sources, because in IMDB, say she Attended Parklane Academy, a private school in McComb, Mississippi until October 1994. She was on the girls basketball team. And add she lost the virginity at 14 years old, from US magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.222.13 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind regards. Britney Spears —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.222.13 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That website's biography of Britney Spears is plagiarized from wikipedia. There is already this article; List of Britney Spears' awards, which is accessible from the Britney Spears template in the bottom of the main article. So there is no need to mention the awards here in the main article. Oidia (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


In Contents section, no have one link to Awards, in awards, no have one link to List of Britney Spears' awards only say the Grammy award, and in List of Britney Spears' awards is order only by years, no actress, music.... About the lost virginity at 14, no say nothing, how reference 102 say.
The awards section is below the references, should be at the end of the article.
That website's biography of Britney Spears is one copy and review from wikipedia free license.
Kind regards. Britney Spears

I personally find a list of awards in the main body is not noteworthy enough. You can improve List of Britney Spears' awards, and then have this {{see also|List of Britney Spears' awards}} template placed under discography in this article. Lists are generally discouraged in a prose-oriented article. Reference 102 is used to cite the sentence This has raised questions about her childhood traumas, overt sexuality and relationship with fellow pop singer Justin Timberlake, the article doesn't actually mentions the exact age that she lost her virginity. That sentence is about her public image in general. Thanks. Oidia (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Striptease need mention?

I don't edit this article—and am not a follower of all things Britney—but this caught my eye today: Spears Shocks Shoppers With Striptease (it wasn't a striptease—she actually emerged naked from a store dressing room). Is it worthy to be mentioned in the article or, given Spears current state, is it all just noise? Also, I don't see any mention of Dr. Phil's visit to her in the hospital. What justifies inclusion in this article? TIA! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

These following pages indicate what should be, and what should not be included in an article:
Oidia (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is all this to-do really necessary

This is not Mme. Curie or Benazir Bhutto we're dealing with, here. It's some kid active in noisic during a few years in the 90s and 00s, and hardly worth all this space, or debate. Thirty years from now, nobody's going to remember her, or care - what, after all, has she done besides turn on junior high age males and pedophiles? In the same bag as Paris Hilton, or Lindsay Lohan - generation-specific sex object with no socially redeeming value. Give her a couple of paragraphs and get to work on all the parts of Wikipedia that account for something but have just a sentence, or no entry at all. What a waste... Sid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.201.80 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is fine. She is a very notable person. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its best to think of wikipedia as a 'information for the now' and more importantly 'information from the masses' much like it would be better for drug companies to focus on aids and cancer rather than 'restless leg syndrome' or 'erectile disfunction' Obviously it would be better to focus on expanding and perfecting more 'important' articles but who makes that choice and how do you enforce it? The very nature of wikipedia lends more importance to whatever people in general want to know, edit and create pages for. Quantum physics = not so much, spears not wearing panties = hell yes. The lowest common denominator is the invisible hand of the memetic economy this runs on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanitycult (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines that are built on consensus (consensus=agreed upon by most wiki users). And the policy of What Wikipedia is not, and particularly Wikipedia is not for news reports means that most wiki users have agreed that "Spears not wearing panties = hell no". Oidia (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not what i meant, i meant that the reason some more 'important' articles are stubs and other 'less important' articles, such as this one are more developed have to do with the desire for people to work on pages that have little real-world or historical relevance. It appeals to the lowest common denominator. And I'm pretty sure most wiki users would rather develop pages on recent news stories and their subjects along with videogames and cartoons than what wikipedia is 'supposed' to be about. Its naive to think wikipedia is a strict encyclopedia with high credibility and that most wiki users can separate 'news' from whatever they feel is important information ranging from what specifically happened to Naruto at any given time and weather celebrities wear underwear.Sanitycult (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"News" should belong to Wikinews and not on wikipedia, unless they contain encyclopedic merit. One of the five pillars of wikipedia is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Hence it is not naive to edit wikipedia in the manner of a strict encyclopedia. Wikipedia users are to follow these policies when editing. If a user does not agree with any of policies, then he/she is free to discuss them at the village pump or at the corresponding policy's talk page. But for now, all users should follow current wikipedia policies when editing this article. Users can only ignore wikipedia's policies if the edits made are an absolute improvement to the article. Thank you. Oidia (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with the first comment. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE and write articles on encyclopedia-worthy things. Maybe it would be easier for her to put her life back together if she wasn't getting all this endless flak from random people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fooglemaster (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bipolar?

I've heard from numerous sources that Britney may have bipolar disorder, but I'm not sure if any of those sources are reliable or if any of them have anything more concrete than speculation. Is it worth mentioning? Reyemile (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It's best to not insert anything until there are official source(s). By an official source, I mean an accredited psychologist from a medical institution who conducted a first hand examination, and diagnose her with Bipolar disorder. And the source should be the official diagnosis, or at least publication from a reliable news service. Oidia (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, leave it out. Right now, it's pure speculation on the part of even the very few accredited doctors who have weighed in since they haven't personally treated her. Pinkadelica (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal difficulties or Personal struggles

Since there is no response in the above statement, a RFC is requested.

RfC response: "Difficulties" strikes me as somewhat vague. Having an irritable bowel could qualify just as easily. "Struggles" strikes me as more clearly relating to the majority of the events covered, but also, strictly personally, strikes me as a bit of a cop out. What is it that's she supposed to be "stuggling" with? There is no clear answer. Of the two, "struggles" is almost certainly the preferable one of the two, but maybe retitling it altogether to something like "Developments in 2007 and 2008" would be even more neutral. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
RfC response: I think struggles is only slightly better.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
RFC response: I'm not sure either adequately covers what's happening with Britney.. Perhaps "Life in turmoil" or something to that extent. Either that or just drop the descriptor and leave it as 2007-2008. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
RfC response: I was bold and removed it per above. She's having a very bad time of it and this chapter is being written. We should be extremely respectful and accurate and avoid compounding the stress she apparently is feeling. Benjiboi 20:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Adnan Ghalib - should we mention him or not?

I think one sentence in the Personal life section would be appropriate. Thoughts?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See above - Britney Spears moving to Pakistan. Wikipedia is an article based on facts. We cannot mention every man or boy she takes a fancy to.

Tovojolo (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings either way, but I would argue that it's significant enough now that it warrants inclusion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
According to Britney Spears "I don't know who Adnan Ghalib is. I've never met him before" [4].

We can hardly suggest that Britney lies about her own life, can we ? If she wants to expunge him from her own memory then Wikipedia can hardly include a totally non-notable paparazzo.

Tovojolo (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the day after she said that, she was seen holding his hand and going out to dinner with him, it's safe to say that she does know who he is. I think it deserves inclusion, at least a sentence or so. He gets a lot of press coverage now. --MgCupcake (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The policy of WP:NOT#NEWS says press coverage does not warrant include of the information in the article. I oppose mentioning Adnan. Oidia (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Adnan Ghalib redirects to Britney Spears, yet Ghalib is not mentioned by name anywhere in the article. If Britney actually has no contact with Adnan, then his name shouldn't direct to her article. If he is a major figure in her life, he should be mentioned. Either way, there should be a separate article about him.130.64.158.99 (talk) 05:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding an external link with most recent and updated news about Britney Spears

[spam link deleted]


This website collects all the news talking about Britney Spears from all over the net.

It's an internet tabloid. It doesn't indicate where it gets it's information. It is inappropriate, per WP:EL. Do not add it as an external link or use it as a source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Ward3001 (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How it does not? Each news has listed it's source. Maybe it gathers links also from tabloids but this is for user to decide. And is not like news were posted here in wiki article. I am stil of strong opinion if a user is looking for the information about Britney Spears it should find all he finds in this article + all the best external links (her official site, her fan site and maybe a site whitch gathers all other news about her in one place)... So I am adding this link back and asking you to reconsider.

Here's just one example of many from the website: "Britney Spears was spotted out roaming around Hollywood last night with companion/manager Sam Lufti." No source. No citation. Not even a comment about where the information came from. Anyone who is willing to register on the website can add such items. It's tabloid. It's a blog. It's junk. Please thoroughly read WP:EL and WP:BLP before discussing this issue again. And don't add the link again. It is vandalism and can get you blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Added new image

I've added a new image of Britney performing in 1999. While it is older than the previous image, it shows her face instead of a big blur and hair flying everywhere, which is why, in my opinion, it is a better picture.

I'm going to move the old picture down in the article some.

If anybody has any pictures that they are willing to release into the Public Domain or CC or GFDL or whatever, please do so. We are in serious need of recent pictures - and pictures in general! Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 11:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. When I first saw it, I couldn't recognise it's Britney, mainly because of the makeup. And a more recent photo of her is more suiting for the lead than an older one. I've moved the "hair flying everywhere" image back to the top. Oidia (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, it looks a lot more like Britney than the current one - in which her head is sideways, her eyes are closed and her hair is flying everywhere. One would probably not be able to tell it was Britney Spears if it were not stated, whereas the older one is obviously her; albeit younger (this is like 8 years ago we're talking about. Some living people have images from the 80s in their articles).
It's ironic how there are dozens of photographers following her every move yet nobody has released any photo as CC or PD or GDFL or anything. I'm going to get in contact with some photo agencies to see if they have any outtakes or anything that they would be willing to release. A recent picture in this article would be superb - she's changed a lot. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Good idea! It's true that there are so many photos of her out there, just no one bothers to upload them here on wikipedia. All the best for finding more recent photos of her. A photo of her and K. Federline would be a great addition to the 2004-2006 section. Oidia (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The current photo (b&w outfit) is terrible, it doens't look like her and her hair is everywhere and her fase is blurred, please find a new picture.--Jak3m (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed Getty Images, X17, and WENN asking them if they can release any images into CC Attribution-Share Alike or PD. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope they do so. :) — Jhn* 15:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Says she died in the infobox?

Clearcut vandalism. Protected page, someone fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.202.85 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Left a warning on the page of the vandal User talk:Baudchan that he shall be blocked if he persists in his acts of vandalism.
Tovojolo (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears is suffering from fame psychosis say some psychiatrists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.241.155 (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears has "mental issues," manager says

You all have one week to add this in, or that's it, I will

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSN1S46616920080130

if you don't trust that article (the one on Google) I'm sure you can read the 300+ articles here - http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&ncl=1126956296&hl=en

Ya, we're adding this in somehow Radiohumor (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

the British accent

I respectfully disagree with Oidia's edit that the British accent is "not very newsworthy". When Madonna does it in interviews, it's an affectation. When Britney does it under psychiatric examination, it's evidence of mental illness. So I'm putting it back - along with a link to video of her speaking that way. Cheerio, mates! Ribonucleic (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Britney Spears, not about Madonna. Britney's British accent is not noteworthy for this encyclopedic biography of her. Speaking with a particular accent does not equal to someone having mental illness. The source cited in the article does not say speaking with an accent equates to mental illness. And speaking with a particular accent for a couple of days is not significant in her entire life, nor noteworthy in an encyclopedia. It has been removed. Oidia (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You haven't persuaded me. But you seem to feel more passionately about this than I do - so I won't contest the point. I suppose this morning's re-hospitalization speaks for itself. Or is that not noteworthy in your opinion either? Ribonucleic (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack, therefore you should act in good faith and not flip out. The fact that she talked with an accent that is not normal for her to have does not mean that she has a mental illness. There are many reasons why one would do that, and unless you have a cited article stating that this is a symptom of a multiple personality, from a registered and licensed phsychiatrists or other mental health doctor, then it does not meet the requirements to be posted. Calm down. Boydannie (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ribonucleic: Her second admission into hospital is noteworthy. That's why it is currently in the article. But the British accent is definitely not noteworthy. But please remember that after 10, 20 or 30 years (if she lives), these little individual events might not be important anymore, hence they could be removed or modified. Oidia (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that Mother Spears mentions "her [Britney's] British accent" in the affidavit supporting the restraining order against Lufti. "Not normal" indeed, Boydannie. :-) Ribonucleic (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaving with clippers?

How does one shave with clippers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarmite (talk • contribs) 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUM. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
no need for the patronising forum reference. My point was the inaccurate mention in the article, it talks about shaving with clippers. Surely that is not possible. MrMarmite (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems more a semantics issue. She was buzz-cutting but shaving is what was widely reported and is commonly used to refer to a number of hair-removal techniques. Benjiboi 20:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I shaved my head with clippers for years. If you remove the guard, you can take the hair down to the point that your head feels like sandpaper, with no noticeable hair above the skin. "Shaving" is a very normal word. Perhaps there's a dialect problem? The "clippers" referred to are an electric hair-cutter, not scissors ... hence the word "buzz-cut".Kww (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll change "clippers" to "electric clippers" so that readers won't confuse it with "Manual hair clippers". Oidia (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Piece of Me, Ireland

Piece of Me hit number one in Ireland and is not reported under the "Number one singles" section of Britney's page. Not including this is like saying Ireland is a less important country than any of the other countries, which is not obviously not true. If a song hits number one anywhere, then it is a number one single and deserves to be cataloged as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.68.190 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, Ireland is just as important as any other country when it comes to music chrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfieldy (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why was it taken off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayab (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "former"

At what point does it become appropriate to refer to Ms. Spears as "former" pop singer, etc? Given her current status as state-interred mental patient, I think we might be approaching that threshold. Hrhadam (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can make a comback... perhaps when she has formally stated that she is retired that can be added. Or when she dies... unfortuntaly, whichever comes first. Boydannie (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
When there is a verifiable and reliable claim that she has retired.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Sister

I am slightly amazed to see that at the top paragraph there is no mention of her relation to (future wreck) Jamie Lynn Spears. Just needs a quick statement, like many other bios where they say, Sibling of XXX. Concensus? Boydannie (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

By way of comparison, the article on Jennifer Tilly doesn't mention Meg Tilly in the top paragraph. [Or vice versa.] It seems to me that at least 90% of Jamie-Lynn's notability derives from Britney. I'd say she'll have to become a lot more famous in her own right before being her sister is on par with the notability factors in Britney's own top paragraph. Ribonucleic (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont know... her sister does have her own TV show and has her own article. In other articles such as the Zooey Deschanel article at least her sister shows up in the early life segment. Boydannie (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to create a separate article for the Meltdown?

I can't find it now - but I swear there used to be a separate article with the details of all of Pete Doherty's arrests/rehab stints/etc. I think this article would really benefit from a similar approach. Give the soap opera its own sordid area and let the primary article focus on the subject's... uh, accomplishments. Ribonucleic (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the "meltdown" (her hospitalization(s)?) are notable enough for a separate article. Moreover, they can be summarized in one or two sentences.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Restraining order

An X17 photo of Britney buying a Mercedes is "the latest Britney news". Her mother alleging under oath in a court document that Britney was virtually being held prisoner in her home is, in my humble opinion, rather more significant. If you're not going to be able to sleep tonight over its "undue weight", the appropriate response would be to seek a better balance in the article - rather than your wholesale censorship. Ribonucleic (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#NEWS. And when someone "alleges", we know it's not 100% confirmed or true. Hence it should not be in the article per WP:BLP. Thank you. Oidia (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If you had slowed your rush to censor long enough to read what you were deleting, you might have seen that my edit said that a restraining order was granted based on allegations in the affidavit. That the order was issued - and that those allegations were made - are "100% confirmed and true" facts in the public record - as documented by my iron-clad reference. If Lutfi or you have a problem with that, you'll need to take it up with Lynne Spears and the judge who signed the order. And simply saying "WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#NEWS" is not going to persuade me of anything. I've read them and I don't believe that they warrant your removal of my edit. Please either lay out the specifics of your reasoning or direct your censoring energies elsewhere. Ribonucleic (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It is sufficient to mention that Spears's former manager was served a restraining order following her hospitalization. Anything more is more than necessary. Even that is pushing it; in a few years/months it will hardly be notable.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have simplified that paragraph into one sentence. Agnaramasi is right. Just like what I've said here. These small events in her life should get very little mention, as they are not notable over time. Oidia (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

5250...stop deleting

"Afterwards Spears was further held under the 5250 California Welfare and Institutions regulations. [1]" MrMarmite (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is these minor events significant in her life? Do we even need to mention that she is "further held"? Oidia (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the mention that she was hospitalized is sufficient. The exact length and legal status of her hospitalization will hardly be notable in a few months.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence has been removed as it lacks historic significance. Oidia (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sam Lutfi

Who else thinks its time for a Sam Lutfi article? Granted no one knows anything about him so it would be a stub, but theres a new MSNBC article out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23017882/ that has some of the major details described. Would be a good jumping off point. Boydannie (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, a simple mention of him here will more than suffice IMO.--Agnaramasi (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. He's only notable as Britney's... well, whatever he is. Ribonucleic (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Svengali? Powers T 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's not notable. And I think he's a devil. Britney has to stay so far from him. That's so sad! Template:=(

Extent of coverage

I don't think the massive media attention Britney has received over time can be properly reflected in this article's limited depth of coverage. What is presently in the article looks good, but it is not nearly comprehensive. A new subarticle should be created to cover events pertaining to her personal life in depth; actually, I would support many articles like this being created, to deal with different aspects, but to have one full subarticle devoted to it would be a big improvement. Compare the notability of all the events, controversies and crises surrounding her personal life to the notability of some of her songs on which we have articles—we have articles on all of her singles, some of which are highly notable, but some of which were fairly unsuccessful. Of course, I definitely do think that all of the singles should have articles; my point is that her lesser hits never received anywhere near the level of media coverage that the events in her personal life have received. Everyking (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot has to be added, its ridiculous that Christina Aguilera's article is longer than Britney Spears when Britney clearly has more things to her, but I don't think we bneed to exploit her or her issues, I just think more should be mentioned about her life and about her career.-- (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)BSLILO

Christina Aguilera's article is rated B. This article is rated GA, meaning that this article is of higher quality than Christina's. And it goes to prove that a longer article does not mean a better article. Oidia (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys are all delusional, face the facts and read this please.

Britney spears' life has been a trainwreck for the past few years. Rolling Stone magazine (the biggest and most notable music magazine in history) did a huge article about it in their recent issue, yet wikipedia almost wants to water it down. For instance, we should add how she's been famous the past for years for being a slob/wreck. Also, I ctrl+f'd the word "suicide" and found nothing on that in the main article. I mean jesus christ do I have to go in here and talk about how much of a low-life she's been recently? Respond to this. Radiohumor (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Although not a particularly polite way of putting it, this raises an issue similar to the one I raised above: Wikipedia does not have nearly enough content on the stuff that has been in the headlines about her in the last few years. Everyking (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Everyking. Mayhaps I suggest a Britney Spears: Trainwreck or another similarly named article? Queerbubbles (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons suggests that we should "water down" these sort of things. I personally think describing her as a "trainwreck" in this article is not a good idea. Though I do like the idea of having another article that specializes in describing the recent events surrounding her. That way, in that article, we can go into a lot more detail. Oidia (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Humor...? Queerbubbles (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is inappropriate for even this talk page. We don't call her a "trainwreck" namely because to do so would be WP:POV, not to mention libelous. Wikipedia biographies are not meant to be an aggregate or compendium of tabloid reports and personal commentaries.--Agnaramasi (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Zomg... it was a joke. We kid on this talk page... no? We throw in a word here or there to bring a lightness to the situation, and thats what that was. I recognize that it would be inappropirate to call her subpage trainwreck, and I even wrote that previously. Please, knock it off. Take it as such and lets get on with this converstaion. All for a subpage, say aye? Queerbubbles (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean/intend by "subpage"? Also, I dont understand what's so funny about WP:vandalism.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Being called a vandal when I havent vandalized anything is not exactly acting in good faith and I would appreciate it if you would stop making personal attacks. This whole subject is about creating more information re: her present mental and public status. Everyking, above, discussed the possibility of creating a subpage regarding this part of her life due to the fact that it is very notable and in 30 years, people will still be talking about this. Please try to keep to the subject at hand, and not go off on a tangent. Obviously, your take is to not create a subpage. Thank you. Can other people please comment on this? Queerbubbles (User talk:Queerbubblestalk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't call you a vandal. I simply said that the OP's vandalism isn't funny, as you implied it was. Other editors seem to agree that adding more trivial details about her personal life, as documented by tabloids, is wholly inappropriate.--Agnaramasi (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. As this is a talk page, lets keep it to the subject. In other articles, the discussion of people's bad times are put in, in detail. Granted, this would make the main article extremely long. Therefore a subpage. Adding details about a person's personal life, especially if it has been going on for a year + is significant, not trivial, and not inappropriate. One could argue that having an article about a person's personal details at all is inappropriate, however, such is the argument of the 21st century which is another fun debate for another fun day. Queerbubbles (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What I want to know, then, is exactly which details you would like to include in a new "subpage" which are not already included? They will have to be debated point by point. Although there may be some oversights, my personal feeling is that the page is already verging on giving too many trivial details. Half of what is already included will hardly be notable, or even interesting, in a year's time. Also keep in mind that to satisfy the wikipedia criteria of WP:N and WP:V, not to mention WP:BLP, tabloid sources and other unverifiable speculation should be avoided.--Agnaramasi (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that in 1 years time we wont be talking about these things. Example, we're still talking about her bald head and umbrella incident, arent we? Its no longer a tabloid source thing anymore, it's in Rolling Stone and MSNBC. Yes, each point will have to be debated, and most certainly not a free for all. Anyone want to contribute as to which points would be valid? Queerbubbles (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose a separate "Britney Spears Umbrella Attack" article. :-) Ribonucleic (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly second that! Queerbubbles (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The umbrella attack is not notable IMO.--Agnaramasi (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Agnar... you really need to read between the lines, and see humor. Ribo even left a :-) to show that they were joking. Queerbubbles (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is completely inappropriate, not to mention a waste of serious editors' time. This page is for discussing actual improvements to the article. I asked you for instances of things that you think ought to be included that aren't alredy, and you responded with the examples of the head-shaving incident (which is already included) and the umbrella attack (which in my view is not notable). Were you trying to make a joke with those suggestions also?--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay so are we going to make another article about her disasterious life so far? Or do a better job at talking about in the article? What's going on here. Radiohumor (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to determine how to proceed, editors must offer examples of notable and verifiable facts about Spears' personal life which ought to be included and aren't presently. Everything depends on the quantity (if any) of material to be added.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That goes without saying, considering how policed this article really is. To be completely honest, I've been keeping an eye on this page for 1 1/2 years now, just to see if there has been improvement regarding how the main editors turn BS's drama into PC, apologetic newsclips. The lack of willingness to present her recent history as it is, in all of its ugly and sorry light, more than smacks of WP:NPOV. Finally, the umbrella attack is noteworthy, if no one adds it within the week, I shall. Zidel333 (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I am no fan of Spears, but I do not think it is alright to include every tabloid report in this article. The umbrella attack may be borderline notable, because it has been reported widely by the mainstream press (e.g. AP). WP:BLP does clearly demand, however, that biographies do not become a compendium of trivial tabloid reports. What other "drama" has been turned into "PC, apologetic newsclips," as you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnaramasi (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Bald head, hospitalization, Sam Lutfi, drugs, crying spells, her parenting skills, her relationship with Ghalib... the list can go on but I'm feeling very tired about this entire conversation. No, we dont want to clutter this article and make it ridiculously long. Therefore there really should be a seperate sub page where all of this info is. It doesnt have to be long, but it would seperate the main article, with her major points, with her current life situation which is extremely notable. Queerbubbles (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party from WP:BLP/N, here is my reply -- Per WP:RS, "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Tabloids are not well known for that. Per WP:V#Questionable_sources, "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." I don't see much debate; they simply cannot be added in which would be in vio. of BLP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont read tabloids, or peruse TMZ... I generally get my Britney info from MSNBC. Just by the way. Queerbubbles (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure a reasonably lengthy article on her various personal life troubles could be written without resorting to a tabloid source even once (although I wouldn't favor such a limitation—tabloid sources should be used if necessary, but carefully and intelligently). Everyking (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Associated Acts?

This should be taken out, why would Christina Aguilera be in there and not, Madonna, Pharrel, Snoop Dogg, Justin Timberlake, Ying Yang Twins, Keri Hilson etc. ?? Makes no sense, should be replaced with something useful.--[[]] (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[[User:BSLILO]

"Useful" and Britney Spears aren't commonly associated. :-) Ribonucleic (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Check and mate ! But seriously, all these other people are notable, have worked with her, and should be included. You wouldnt leave out the members of the Rat Pack, right? Queerbubbles (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lead

The second half of the first paragraph:

Britney has two albums among the 100 top-selling albums of all time: ...Baby One More Time at #59 and Oops!... I Did It Again at #81[6], both of which have been certified at least Diamond by the RIAA.[7][8] The song "...Baby One More Time" became a wordwide succes and the United World Chart ranked the song as the 38th best song, and second most charted song of all-time.[9] just in front of "Yesterday" and behind "Can't Buy Me Love" both by The Beatles. Britney Spears was also the first artist to have a number one album and number one single in both the U.S Billboard charts and in the United World Chart.[10][11]

should be moved into the article's main body. It makes the lead rather long, and the lead is suppose to evenly summarize the entire article.

This is the details that I propose:

  • Britney has two albums among the 100 top-selling albums of all time: ...Baby One More Time at #59 and Oops!... I Did It Again at #81[6], both of which have been certified at least Diamond by the RIAA.[7][8]
    • This can be removed altogether since it's already mentioned in very similar wording in "Rise to fame".
  • The song "...Baby One More Time" became a wordwide succes and the United World Chart ranked the song as the 38th best song, and second most charted song of all-time.[9]
    • This can be added in the paragraph about the "...Baby One More Time" song.
  • just in front of "Yesterday" and behind "Can't Buy Me Love" both by The Beatles.
    • This can be removed as it's not that needed.
  • Britney Spears was also the first artist to have a number one album and number one single in both the U.S Billboard charts and in the United World Chart.[10][11]
    • This can be added to the end of the paragraph on the ...Baby One More Time album. Since it's the album and the single that granted her the title of "the first artist to have..." Oidia (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Great! Please fix this, by all means.--Agnaramasi (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Problem With Fans

I understand hundreds of thousands of people are "fanatics" of Britney Spears and would do anything(including add lies on her wiki page) to make her seem more...better. Would you fans quit changing the intro calling her an author(no source), and add occasional before songwriter(like Celine Dion, to show she doesnt write alot). thanks --The Blizzard King (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Spears' fans don't define songwriter. If she receives songwriting royalties from ASCAP, which she does, she is a songwriter. If she wrote something and had it published, she is an author. In regard to your recent actions, please read WP:DICK. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 04:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition, I've added reliable sources for both of those statements so please do not use "they dont have sources" as an excuse for their removal. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 01:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy on consensus states that "In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." This article stated that she is a songwriter and an author on Oct 1 2007, and was listed as a Good Article. This peer review on Oct 21 showed that all reviewers agreed that she is a songwriter and an author. At this Feature Article nomination on November 4, all the reviews agreed that she is a songwriter and an author. And now that citations/sources are in place, there is no doubt that she is a songwriter and an author. Thank you. Oidia (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this inclusion for another reason. I don't dispute that she has contributed to writing songs or that she has contributed to a book which has been published, but these are very minor activities when viewed within the wider context of her overall career - she is primarily a singer, an all-round entertainer, and to a lesser extent she is a dancer. She's made a film and a few TV appearances, but she is not primarily an actor. And so on. The problem is that in the lead, all of these activities are given equal weight, and this is not supported by the Wikipedia:Lead section guideline. A couple of points from the guideline:
"It should establish context, summarize the most important points" - Britney's songwriting, writing and acting are not among the "most important points" to be made about her, and yet they appear in the very first sentence of her article, presented without distinction alongside the main reason for her notability which is her success as a singer/recording artist/performer.
"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" - once again, these minor points are given equal credence and this is misleading. Imagine someone who has never heard of Spears and the only thing they have to go on, is the lead section of this Wikipedia article. Wouldn't they be misled into believing that her achievements as an author or songwriter are significant?
"the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text" - this doesn't happen. The importance given in the lead and the importance given in the article are not equal. Within the article there is barely a mention of her songwriting or authoring, and yet it's significant enough to put it in the first sentence of the article as part of a basic "definition" of Britney Spears?
These are bigger problems than the easily answered question of whether it is factual or whether it can be supported with citations. Consensus is a good thing to support, but something's not proven to be right simply because enough people believe it, or more specifically because enough people fail to call it wrong, which seems to be the conclusion that you are drawing, and as the policy states in more detail, it is a concept that evolves over time as more people become involved. You say there is "no doubt" and I say there is "a lot of doubt" and now there is no longer a consensus. Rossrs (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Indicating that she is an actress is not giving undue weigh in the very first sentence. It is mentioned after singer, dancer and songwriter. It fits in with the order of importance in relation to the article's subject. There are only a total of five main sections in the article's main body, one of them is called "Film and television", and its placement right after music career suggests the significance of her as an actress. The sources cited in the section of "Film and television" indicates the significance of her role as a actress, including appearances in several television shows. Its mention in the article is enough to warrant the inclusion of the term "actress" in the first sentence. The silent consensus implied that she is an actress, and you cannot simply dismiss them all as a mistake. So far, the number of users that "have doubt" about actress in the first sentence is far less than the number of users that "have no doubt".
Britney Spears is a songwriter and once again I point out this discussion. Even though the article mentions little of her songwriting activity, she has co-wrote several songs for her albums, one of them having peaked at number one in several countries. So perhaps her songwriting credits should be expanded in the article, given the significance of the song(s) that she wrote. Given the significance, it should be mentioned in the first sentence. Once again, you cannot classify the consensus as "enough people failed to call it wrong".
I decide to remain neutral in terms of whether to mention her as an author or not. Oidia (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand that it has previously been discussed that she is considered a songwriter/author but my point is that the way the lead section is written does not comply with the layout described at Wikipedia:Lead section. In the previous discussions people have talked about citing sources, original research etc, and that's all fine. Nobody has discussed it in relation to the lead section guideline until now. I have no issue with her songwriting or book authoring being mentioned as long as it is done accurately. For example if it said that she had contributed songwriting to several of her songs, or she was an author of 2 books (or however many) that would be better because it would make it clearer. As for questioning a silent consensus - well yes I can question it if I can see that nobody has discussed it from a particular angle, if I think that angle is relevant, and even you haven't really addressed the lead guideline points that I've made. A silent consensus can mean consent, or it can mean lack of opposition or it can mean nobody has noticed a particular thing, but it's not a good idea to assume its meaning, and in any case it's not set in stone and is still open to discussion. As you say, the article could be expanded to discuss further her songwriting, and this would help, because the balance between the lead and the article is not right. This would be an improvement. Rossrs (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Britney has written two books, and co-wrote one with her mother. I suggest we all turn to amazon.com to check those out, they're lookin fab! All kidding aside, we generall attribute "author" status to people who have only written one book. So in all fairness, she is an author and should be titled as such. Whether these two books are enough to be considered "author" in the first paragraph... perhaps. Maybe there are people out there (I said maybe) who dont know her for anything else except the books. Who knows. They have gotten decent ratings on amazon, but didnt do a full search on how many were sold, whether they were on the NYT best sellers list, or anything like that. Just as we should expand on the songwriter-ship, maybe there could be a sentance or two about these three books and when they were published. Just a quick mention so people dont automatically assume that we're just making crap up.  :) Queerbubbles (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. And if it's mentioned in more detail in the article, it better meets the guideline of "balance", but for balance it would need more than a sentence or two. Rossrs (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that songwriter, actress and author should be included. So long as they are after 'singer', I do not think they are being given undue weight.--Agnaramasi (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how listing them without giving any kind of explanation as to their significance or lack of significance is not giving it undue weight. The Wikipedia:Lead section guideline is pretty clear, but it seems to be ignored here. There is nothing in the lead section to say whether she's written one book or 100 books. Have you read the lead section guideline? How can this meet the requirement of "balance" when there is no discussion of these things in the article? Rossrs (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that it is imbalanced to call her an actor or songwriter, as these are in fact mentioned later in the article. If her book projects aren't mentioned later (I wansn't even aware of them), they really should be discussed later on if 'author' is included in the lead. So long as these categories are explained later in the article, I do not see why it is a huge problem for them to be included in the lead. I do not think it is misrepresenting Spears' career. I just don't see this as hugely problematic.--Agnaramasi (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion further in the article is important, I agree, but it is also important that the lead stands on its own. You shouldn't have to read the article to learn that there is a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon between her achievements as a singer and her achievements as an author. I think it's easily fixed, but I don't think it's OK to just leave it as it is. I've commented also below Oidia's comment. Rossrs (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The entire lead overall complies with the guidelines on WP:LEAD. The very first sentence (what we are really discussing) is balanced because those definitions of her are true, and it is written in the order of significance. Having actress as a definition in the first sentence is definitely needed, as it is elaborated in the 2nd paragraph of the lead, as well as the section of Film and television. And mentioning songwriter is also balance as it is only mentioned in one word, hence it's not giving any undue weigh. Oidia (talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking this over, and I agree with a lot of your comments, but I disagree that it is completely balanced. The balance has to be between the lead and the article, not just within the lead itself. I agree almost entirely with your comments about her acting career, and somewhat with the songwriting comments, but I think the author part is still out of context. I think the main problem is that it doesn't clearly quantity her achievements. ie as a recording artist she is exceptionally successful, but as an author mediocre, and if not for the recording, she wouldn't even be a published author. My issue has been that the lead needs to reflect what's contained in the article, and the way it's currently written, I really don't think it does. I have a suggestion though, and would value any comments. This is my thinking : "Britney Spears is an author" is a true statement. "Britney Spears is a singer who has written books" is actually a more accurate statement because it puts the emphasis onto her music and notes the writing as a sideline. "Britney Spears is an actor" is a true statement. "Britney Spears is a singer who has expanded her career to include acting in film and television" is more accurate and more descriptive. I think if it was rewritten/expanded just a little it would be more accurate and more specific. It just needs a little context.
I suggest something like this :
Britney Jean Spears (born December 2, 1981) is an American singer, dancer and occasional songwriter. Her success as a recording artist has allowed her to work in other media; she has acted in film and television, has written two books, and has been contracted to endorsed several products, including her own perfume line."
End of paragraph. Next paragraph picks up discussion of her singing career, and so on. Very rough - but it's basically what is contained in the latter part of the lead. I think bringing it forward would make the basic defining sentence about her, a bit more descriptive and places into a context that is currently lacking. This would then lead into the points raised in the section. Rossrs (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty good actually. The current lead is developed based on the order of the sections in the main article. I find this suggestion and the current existing one are equally good. If we are to have her singing career description and her record sales achievement merged into the 2nd paragraph, it would probably make that paragraph rather long. I suggest this:
"Britney Jean Spears (born December 2, 1981) is an American singer, dancer and songwriter. She has sold over 83 million records worldwide according to Zomba Label Group. The RIAA ranks her as the eighth best-selling female artist in American music history, having sold 32 million albums in the U.S. Her success as a recording artist has allowed her to work in other media; she has acted in film and television, has written two books, and has been contracted to endorsed several products, including her own perfume line."
End of paragraph, next paragraph will start the mention her albums, etc. I brought the album sales figure up there because she is prominently a recording artist. Oidia (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds very good to me. Good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnaramasi (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think it's very good. The sales figures really explain why she was allowed to try other things. Thanks Oidia - love your work! Rossrs (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Oidia (talk • contribs) 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Priority assessment change

I have made a separate WPBiography entry above for Spears as part of the film biography project, apart from the musician project because Spears as an actress isn't of high priority, while she is as a singer. Just leaving the explanation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maternity leave

In the section "2004–2005: Greatest hits and remix album" the last sentence says "The album did not reach the success of her previous albums due to Spears being on maternity leave." While the citation shows the Billboard positions of her albums, it doesn't really address that the album's place on the charts was due to taking time off, and I'm not sure the phrase "maternity leave" is representative of her position. Maternity leave is a fairly specific term used in relationship to a formal leave of employment, which isn't what she did. I just wanted to bring this up as something that might need addressed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the source doesn't say it, so I've removed "due to Spears being on maternity leave". Oidia (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Piece of me goes # 1

'Piece of Me' just went number one in Australia (According to the songs Wiki Page), so shouldn't that be added to her '# 1 Singles'? :)

It went to number one on the ARIA Dance Chart, which is a component chart. It just failed to enter number one on the ARIA Singles Chart - the main chart. Hence it should not be in the table in this article. Oidia (talk • contribs) 13:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It went number 1 in Ireland, why doesn't that count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.166.249 (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As for Ireland, it's not considered a major market. Although I myself aren't quite certain as to what is and is not considered a "major market". You might want to speak to Kraft. about it, just leave a message in his talk page. He's usually the one that looks after the number one singles table. Oidia (talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

informacion from argentina

http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?PerDesde_MM=0&PerDesde_AA=0&PerHasta_MM=0&PerHasta_AA=0&interprete=britney+spears&album=&LanDesde_MM=0&LanDesde_AA=0&LanHasta_MM=0&LanHasta_AA=0&Galardon=O&Tipo=0&ACCION2=+Buscar+&ACCION=Buscar&CO=5&CODOP=ESOP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.253.141 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

record sales

why don't you mention that britney has sold more than 140 million records worldwide... including singles and complications... you could read it in every discography of her.. sry for my english;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.62.40.18 (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source to backup that statement? Her record label, Zomba Label Group, states that she has sold 83 million albums as of the release of Blackout at [5].. and unfortunately, Blackout hasn't sold 57 million copies. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 10:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand a bit

should the article not expand a bit in music career. i think it should in clude piece of me and that her next single is break the ice. just wondering what you all think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the other albums only mention one single - In Blackout's case, Gimme More. All of the singles are mentioned in the album's article. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 10:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.