Talk:Christina Aguilera/Archive05

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

Influences

She grew up admiring artists such as Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Etta James, Judy Garland, Lena Horne, Barbra Streisand, Otis Redding, Madonna, Minnie Riperton, Bessie Smith, Janis Joplin, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Sade, Stevie Wonder, and Aretha Franklin.

I have never known of Christina to mention Judy Garland, Barbra Streisand, Sade, or Janis Joplin as her influences... Nor as she ever mentioned Minnie Riperton or Otis Redding, although they are mentioned in the song Back in the Day on Back to Basics. If we are to include everyone that is mentioned in the lyrics of that song we would have to also include Donnie Hathaway, James Brown, Gladys Knight, Louis Armstrong, Coltrane, Ray Charles, Nat King Cole, and Miles Davis. Also, does this info have to be cited?--Geokaii 09:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

F.U.S.S.

One track, "F.U.S.S.", was written as a response to the animosity between Aguilera and Scott Storch during the recording of Stripped.

I remember reading that the animosity between the two began only after the release of Stripped, during the beginning stage of recording Back To Basics. Apparently her record company would not pay to charter a plane for Storch to fly from his studio in Miami to Las Angeles and he didn't think Christina had supported him.--Geokaii 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Parents not Catholic

Aguilera's parents were Mormon, not Catholic. They met at BYU and married in a Mormon temple.

Christina herself has said that her parents are Catholic (her mother's side is Irish-German Catholic while her father's side is from Ecuador and so are Spanish Catholic). 130.39.109.45 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/12627 http://www.morgannews.us/rumor.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Animeanimals (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Hollywood glamour look

many of her fans believe she is one of the main proponents (along with Dita Von Teese, Gwen Stefani and Ashley Judd) in bringing back the 1920s-1940s Hollywood glamour look.

Then "many of her fans" (sic) are either very young or similarly misinformed. I agree she is the most visible female celebrity invoking the style at this point, but is there ever a point when some female celebrity doesn't invoke this durable style?--Son of Somebody 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mom is Canadian

Christina's mom isn't from Newfoundland. She is from Pennsylvania, USA! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5 octaves (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Grammy Award Winning

STOP!!! The person who keeps erasing "Grammy Winning" from the introduction is clearly being prejudice. Christina has won 3 Grammy awards along with a Latin Grammy award. It is safe to say she is a "GRAMMY AWARD" winning singer. The same way it does for other singers who have won Grammys.--67.187.218.213 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But is she noted because of the Grammys she wins? Category:Grammy Award winners has a list of about 800 Grammy winner, what makes her different from the other ~790 others? --wL<speak·check·chill> 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of how many Grammys she has won, she is still a "Grammy Award Winning" artist. Period. "Grammy Award Winning."
She has won a Grammy therefore she is a Grammy Award winner. --FreeWikiWiki 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, as I see these are your first edits. We're not disputing whether or not Aguilera is a Grammy Award winner, but if it is important enough to be included in the first sentence of the article. My point is that there are about 800 other grammy winners. Yes, the grammy mentions should be in the lead, but that's not what identifies her. It shows POV. As a matter of fact, Kate Winslet, an actress has won a Grammy. But we don't put her as "grammy award winning". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
Grammy Awards can be notable (though they are not automatically notable), and in the context of Aguilera's career they are probably notable enough to mention in the lead section of this article, but they shouldn't be used to define her (by introducing her straight away as "Grammy Award-winning"). POV issues (of which there are several) aside, the Grammys are mentioned four other times in the lead section (creating repetition that is jarring for the reader), and WP:LEAD#Provide_an_accessible_overview states "The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic" - including "Grammy Award-winning" prevents this from happening. I refuse to get into this again - see Talk:Christina_Aguilera/Archive04#.22Grammy-winning.22 for an earlier discussion about this involving myself and other editors. Extraordinary Machine 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting because when I look at other artists such as Joss Stone & Corinne Bailey Rae, they are noted for being nominated for a Grammy. They have not even won a Grammy and they are still noted as "Grammy Award nominated" artists. A Grammy is a very prestigious award and an artist should be honored for winning ANY Grammy. Additionally, artists such as India Arie (2 Grammys), Jill Scott (1 Grammy), and Ciara (1 Grammy) are all noted as "Grammy Award winning" artists. Christina Aguilera has won 3 Grammys and 1 Latin Grammy. Lastly, I would consider the categories in which Christina Aguilera won 'notable' categories. Best New Artist, Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals, and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance are 'notable' Grammy categories. Not to mention the Latin Grammy for Best Female Pop Vocal Album and the numerous other Grammy Award nominations in several different major categories. I don't understand what is not 'notable' about this. I added "Grammy Award winning" back into the intro. --FreeWikiWiki 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
They shouldn't be noted in the first sentence, as the the lead policy tells us. The first sentence should state generally what the subject does, not how well s/he does it. Of course, a Grammy is a prestigeous award, so it should be mentioned in the lead. But it only tells how good a musician is, not only that she is. To put it another way, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s article does not read "Martin Luther King, Jr. is a Nobel Peace Prize winning political activist." The notability of awards usually go into the second sentence. ----wL<speak·check·chill> updated 08:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. That's a good example. After looking at Martin Luther King Jr.'s page, I agree. I totally understand what you are saying. I'm okay with removing "Grammy Award winning" from the lead sentence as long as each Grammy is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Thanks for the clarification. I would like to note, however, that many other artists do not follow this same rule. --FreeWikiWiki 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

References

The references are sloppy because some of them are only numbered external links that have no definition to them. Some references also look malformed. But thanks to whoever split them up into two columns in Fx --wL<speak·check·chill> 08:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera: I Cook Naked With My Husband

NEW YORK — Christina Aguilera has no problem showing skin — especially on weekends with her husband, music executive Jordan Bratman. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250579,00.html Crocoite 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's useless info. But I wonder what they'll "do to keep the marriage alive" after the 18 month anniversary.--Son of Somebody 14:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Next Album?

I didn't read every word of the article, so maybe it mentions it, but are there any details about Christina's next album? She doesn't seem to be as heavy on the old-skool look any more, and she's released three songs so I'd be thinking it's time to move on. Back To Basics doesn't have anywhere near as many potential singles as Stripped, and there are two discs instead of oe! 212.139.222.62 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

When you mean next album, do you mean Back to Basics or whatever she releases afterward? --wL<speak·check·chill> 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin

Since when has Christina been from oklahoma or however you spell it, she was born in New York city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Louievanstone (talk • contribs) 15:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

The Oklahoma birth seems false. It was originally added by '84.69.61.78'- who also thought that her career began in 2002. Spellcast 08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just reverted several versions of this page; for some reason, it was reverted to a version that said she was born in Oklahoma. There seems to be a lot of editing warring at the moment, so I reverted to a version before the edit wars began. Acalamari 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I was rather surprised to see that someone this famous has so little biographical information on Wikipedia.Ronstock 16:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Would somone please change the photogragh to anything other thatn what it is currently. The current photo shows nothing of her current style, weight &/or image. Hiltonhampton 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Block Attention"

What does "As a child she performed at block attention" mean? Got me scratching my head. Was she a railway signalman as a child? Any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.12.144.21 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

It's supposed to say "Block party" --wL<speak·check> 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammy intro

The intro repeats her Grammy wins in 5 sentences. There's no doubt this deserves to be in the intro but must it be mentioned 5 times? If you look at a featured article like Weird Al Yankovic, it summarises his awards in a sentence: "His works have earned him three Grammy Awards amongst nine nominations, three gold records, and five platinum records." So rather than repeat her wins 5 times, it would be better to say that "Her works have earned her 5 Grammy Awards amongst 16 nominations" and then list the specific awards later in the article. When she was promoted to a good article here, it summarised her awards rather than repeated it. Spellcast 10:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Go, go, go! --wL<speak·check> 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This was delisted as a good article due to the reasons posted by ShadowHalo here. One point says that the Grammy table has a rather POV layout so I've started by removing the colour which highlights the rows where an award was won. Spellcast 13:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No1 Singles

Why are the peak positions in France in this section? surely they shud be left in the Disography section??Mysticmartin 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

France is the 4th biggest market in the world, it's even more important than Australia, Canada and Germany, even though when X-tina doesn't have any number one single there. France must be included anyways. Kraft. 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
But its a section about No1 singles of which she has none in France. Therefore irrelevent to the section unless the section is changed?Mysticmartin 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

High E

What is a "High E"? The article sais she sang this note in full voice, but I do not know how special it is if someone is able to do so. 84.41.232.121 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange sentence

"Back To Basics made of Christina the singer who more sales double COMPACT DISC passing Barbra Streisand with its double The Concert launched in 1994."

I just removed the above sentence from the article after attempting to fix it, or to find a link explaining exactly what claim is being made. If anybody else can figure it out, please do so. It sounds as if Back to Basics passed up The Concert as the biggest selling double-CD, but I can't seem to find a confirmation of that fact, and it's not even clear what metric is being used - most worldwide sales, or what? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I've been reverted twice on this, so we need to discuss this so it doesn't escalate. Many of the images here are not being used properly at all. The article doesn't (and shouldn't) discuss the "Genie in a Bottle" video, so there's no reason to include the copyrighted image Image:Geniecap.jpg. If it's being used to illustrate her "bubblegum" image, then Image:ChristinainChicadoAbril2000.jpg should be used instead. Image:CandymanMusicVideoScreen.PNG also doesn't illustrate anything in the text. If the influence of jazz from previous decades is to be shown then there are plenty of free images here. ShadowHalo 07:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Good article review, mainly for the referencing issues. Anyone with input about the article's status should discuss its GA status there. ShadowHalo 08:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. I can't believe how I seen fancruft take the article down like this. --wL<speak·check> 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My only issue is with the photographs, Genie in a Bottle does not have to be mentioned in an article. It is [her] first single, and well-known at that. It causes people to want to read about the single and the rest of the album/article. Same with the Candyman cap, these pictures don't enlarge anything and makes the page look CLEAN, and the with low resolution, unflattering pictures on the first section in her biography. I still think they should be changed, hopefully others agree. 72.199.158.206 10:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're both well-known. However, we can't include them in the articles unless they illustrate something that can't be illustrated with a free picture (see Wikipedia:Fair use). For example, the video for "Dirrty" was controversial, and that's discussed in the article, so it would be appropriate to have a screenshot to show why it would be controversial. Likewise, her appearance in "Lady Marmalade" was criticized and compared to that of Dee Snider; since the article discusses that (now), it's helpful to include a picture to illustrate why people would make that comparison. However, there's nothing significant about the "Genie in a Bottle" or "Candyman" videos aside from her ever-changing image, so a free picture works just as well and, as stated at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, "Always use a more free alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. 'Acceptable quality' means quality sufficient to serve the necessary encyclopedic purpose." ShadowHalo 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There's thousands of biographies that include at least one or two photos that don't have entire story. I just don't see the concept of having to include a photo that has to be described in full detail. Just like how here signining some autograph isn't as interesting as her debut video. That's the point of these photographs to show her, and how she evolves. The only issue here is that the pictures that are replacing these ones are poor, cheap, and brings down the page a few notches. But I'm not going to get into changing picture back and forth, I could do the same and continue to discuss about it, but seeing as how you did it first, there's no point in changing it back seeing how you're going to repeat yourself. So I'll let the page, even at the expense of how it will continue to look. 72.199.158.206 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that, simply put, we can't use copyrighted pictures unless there is enough critical commentary to justify it and there is no free alternative. A picture of her signing an autograph isn't as interesting, but it still fulfills the encyclopedic purpose by showing her look back then and it is a freely licensed picture. ShadowHalo 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel the only use for the video screenshots are for the singles' articles themselves, as they are used to describe the video in ways a free use image can't. Even though the free pics make the article look less appealing, they make sure that the article remains completely "free to edit", as Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is made to be. If a pic looks ugly, replace it with a better looking image that fits the policy, or edit the one we have now like the main image for the Wii article. --wL<speak·check> 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced Image:Christina Aguilera - Christina Aguilera.jpg with Image:ChristinaAguilera2000.jpg; there is no critical commentary on the album cover, and there's a free image available for it. I've also replaced Image:Dirrtyxtina.jpg with Image:Strippedtour backstage2003.jpg. Unlike the image of "Lady Marmalade", there doesn't appear to be any critical commentary on Aguilera's actual appearance in the video, so it's best to stick with free images. As stated at Wikipedia:Fair use, "Always use a more free alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." ShadowHalo 08:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why there should be a revert war over this. It is ridiculous to include the backstage picture of her tour when the original capture clearly portrays the music video and it is mentioned in the article. As for the debut album, I only added that because the beginning of the article mentions her singles, album certification, and success. I don't see why we have to replace it with another picture. The pictures are fine as is and have been that way for several months now it makes no sense changing them. UnknownDude 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be replaced with another picture since, simply put, these images are unfree. Whenever a free picture can be used to illustrate a section, it should be. That unfree images are used (and without fair use rationales) for long periods of time simply means that people ignore our fair use policy; it doesn't justify continuing to do so. I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Fair use review#26 March 2007 to hopefully get some input. ShadowHalo 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a picture in the beginning of her Stripped era, since the other was deleted. That's my suggestion. GodsendLovesend 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There already is one, Image:Tampa 11-21-03.jpg. ShadowHalo 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The first photo in the article is not from the Back to Basics tour as labeled. I do, however, have several photographs (good quality, taken by a pro photographer friend of mine) which aren't copyrighted that can be used. I don't quite know if that's the kind of thing you would want or how to do it, though.

If you do have pictures of Aguilera that you (or the photographer, if you didn't take them) would be willing to release under a free license or into the public domain, then you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons and add them to the Christina Aguilera page there. Even if they don't end up getting used on the English Wikipedia, some of the Wikipedias in other languages may be able to put them to good use. ShadowHalo 04:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality

If she's a bisexual ("Repeatedly loud and varied assertions that she is bisexual" in the edit history), then shouldn't there be at least a teenie weenie cited instance of it in the article? Please? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

High Note

how is it that we classify her as having a 4 octave voice when she only hit a G6 live. Thats all she ever hit LIVe so shoudn't claim her highest note as G6 even though she recorded a C7 in studio. I mean come on i think her highest note is G6 i'll give her C7 if you can find me her singing higher than a g6


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.36.133 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Declare Yourself picture

I've restored the Declare Yourself picture again. The first edit summary stated "rm. cover or Illustration. they are not used to 'illustrate the audio in question or to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork' and therefore do not meet WP's criteria for fair use". There certainly is critical analysis of the work; it specifically describes the image and includes its meaning in the line "In the run-up to the 2004 United States presidential election, Aguilera was featured on billboards for the 'Only You Can Silence Yourself' online voter registration drive run by the nonpartisan, non-profit campaign 'Declare Yourself'. In these political advertisements, shot by David LaChapelle, Aguilera was shown with her mouth sewn shut, to symbolize the effects of not voting." The second edit summary only states "rm political advertisement and critical artwork". Political advertisements are certainly allowed on Wikipedia if they are being used to illustrate discussion of the advertisement, and I don't see how the artwork is "critical". ShadowHalo 07:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

'Grammy Award Winning'

I know this debate was held before and it was decided that five Grammy awards isn't noteworthy enough to include in the opening sentence - but can that decision be reconsidered? The Britney page includes it and Britney only won one - I deleted it and was told that one is noteworthy enough. The Kylie page includes it too and Kylie certainly hasn't won as many as Christina. Can a mod/admin/editor please do something about this, i.e. either restore it to Christina or remove it from the others? I find it highly unfair that Christina's FIVE Grammy wins aren't noteworthy yet no other article seems to make the same negative distinction. And it's no use saying 'well remove Britney's then' - because I did, and it was promptly reverted. Check the talk page there.

Additionally, Christina won the 'Best New Artist' Grammy, which is one of the big four. That's comparable to winning a 'best actress' Oscar yet saying it's not noteworthy enough and comparing it to an obscure technical category. SerenityX 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many Grammys an artist has one; adding "Grammy-winning" to the lead sentence violates our NPOV policy. The lead sentence is supposed to identify the subject; detailed information about award history belongs later in the lead. ShadowHalo 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, my point mainly was that they should be equal across all singers, I'm not here to argue policy. SerenityX 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial Albums

Hi,

I've added the '15 Songs For You' CD to this section as it is an internet phenomenon in Bittorrent circles and just as unofficial as Just Be Free. An anonymous user reverted me but if anyone has a problem with it please use this discussion to express it.

Britney Spears: The Unreleased is in the same category but is uncontested!

Regards, Adw uk 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


  • It has been suggested this is a hoax so I have added evidence of it's existence to the Talk page and outside links to two of the tracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:15_Songs_For_You

Can we try and stick to the Wiki priciple of assuming good faith and please have a discussion in the right places about it's validity instead of removing my links and marking it a potential hoax. I am not some crazy Christina fan, my wife is but I prefer Genesis and Pink Floyd but I have spent time on this researching and adding the article because it is a genuine phenomenon.

Adw uk 09:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


  • I've been reverted yet again by a non-registered user and no discussion here in the appropriate place has been entered into so I'm going to put the information back but again if any registered user wants to discuss it's validity with the group here and a consensus can be reached it's fine with me.

Adw uk 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's reliable sources confirming its existence, it should not be included. Spellcast 06:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I've prodded the article for that very reason. ShadowHalo 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It does exist, i've downloaded it along with hundreds of thousands of other fans. Just Google it as I keep saying, follow a link and listen to some samples. This is a NEW internet phenomenon, see the Britney Spears: The Unreleased page on Wiki, it's been up for a long time without any controversy. I'm not saying to you that 'Back to Basics' doesn't exist because it's never been released on LP or Cassette, it exists in another format. This album does not exist on a CD pressing created by a record company but it does exist as an ALBUM, see the Wiki definition of an album on iPods all over the world. Adw uk 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, Britney Spears: The Unreleased has been tagged for deletion for two days now. ShadowHalo 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former Mormons?

Was she really a Mormon or is that a Brigham Young University legend?[1]--T. Anthony 13:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm that site says her parents went to BYU and their site says 99.1% of BYUers are Mormon. Still I'm not sure that's enough.--T. Anthony 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless someone can find a reliable source that says that she's mormon, then I'll state it. But that's not neccessary, since there are sources that say she's catholic. --wL<speak·check> 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Being in "Former Mormon" is more a claim that she was Mormon than that "she's Mormon." Like I said though outside of some evidence her parents went to BYU, which means only a .9% chance they weren't Mormon, I didn't find much saying she'd ever been one. So I decided to remove her from the category. If someone can find something clearcut saying she had been a Mormon, at one time, it can be returned.--T. Anthony 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Deleted for NPOV

I deleted the following from the opening paragraphs: "During the album's promotion, her overtly sexual image became the subject of intense criticism and ridicule." There is no reference, I'm not aware of this, and I don't think it is an important detail in the introduction, nor is it neutral. Shultze 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

4th Single from B2B

Does anyone know what the fourth single will be? I hear she is releaseing a fourth single.

"Slow Down Baby". However, it was announced through an offical mailing list, which unfortunately is not verifiable, so we need to wait for a solid reference to surface before adding it to the article. ShadowHalo 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

4 Grammys including best new artist

Best New Artist is a GENERAL FIELD award and is the 4th top honor of the night which she won in 2000. That makes sence for Grammy Award winning to be in the first sentence. She also has one Latin Grammy. My father is an Academy member and Best New Artist is a huge honor and he knows his stuff. Winnig that award makes you a big winner.

"Grammy-winning" should not be in the lead sentence, no matter which or how many Grammys she has one. The article is about Christina Aguilera, not the Grammys that she has won, and the lead sentence is supposed to reflect that. ShadowHalo 17:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pregnantcy Rumors

It appears the rumors of Christina being pregnant are true but are yet to be confirmed. It might not be confirmed yet but when it is a section should be added to the personal life section. As someone who follows the music business I expect an official announcement within two to three weeks as she is about to enter her second trimester. Considering that Christina is the top artist at RCA Records they could release a statement through her website. That is what Jive Records did when Britney Spears was pregnant for the first time. We just need to see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.202.72 (talk)

I had to remove that entire part about pregnancy rumors.[2] We need reliable sources, not just rumors. Unless you have sources, that part has to stay out; rumors aren't sources. Acalamari 16:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
SOURCES:
http://www.hollyscoop.com/christina-aguilera/christina-aguilera-pregnant_11524.aspx
http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news?id=33479
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4103430a1860.html
These are not the only three sources. Its all over the place though so I think this should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.202.72 (talk)
First of all, please don't remove other people's legitimate messages; see WP:TALK.
As for the information about her pregnancy, known facts were added, and a user called ShadowHalo found a reliable source for them. Acalamari 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mother

Why the fuck isn't "Mother" under the Collaborations And Featured Singles section? It's a freaking Collaboration. This is PISSING me off. WTF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.90.145 (talk)

First of all, please read WP:CIVIL, and remember to sign your messages.
Secondly, do you have any reliable sources for this? Acalamari 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 6, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  • "was 7 years old" - spell out seven
  • "in the songs," - rm the comma
  • "Aguilera attended North Allegheny School District, near " - you can't attend a school district. Either list the schools or say she was "educated in the"
  • "cites the musicals for" should be "cites the musical"
  • "According to VH1's Driven, this label eventually" - what label? This article has mentioned no label up to this point.
  • "by her own order, swore" - the word order is a little strong; try pleas, desire, requests to her mom, or something similar
  • "the same song again." - rm again (redundant)
  • "then 10-year-old" should be "then ten year old"
  • "Pittsburgh Penguins hockey games" - either remove games here, or add it at the end of "Steelers football"
  • Combine the sentence that begins "At the age of fourteen" and the sentence that begins "In 1997, she represented the" into one paragraph
  • "RCA Records during the same" - remove during
  • "following the Latin pop trend of the time" - this claim to her motives needs to be referenced
  • "certified Gold(500,000)" - a space after Gold
  • "proved to be hit as it won" - comma after hit
  • The paragraph that begins "Months later, Warlock Records" should be joined with the previous paragraph
  • "Due to the bubblegum pop trend at the time and the genre's upward financial trend she was limited" - Huh? I think if someone reads this aloud, they will see it doesn't really make sense
  • The grammar is off in this sentence (some parrallelism problems) "During this time and working on her second album she revealed that she was betrayed by several friends, where she hit rock bottom." Instaed put "During this time, while she was also working on her second album, she later revealed that she was betrayed by several friends, and hit rock bottom.
  • "She used this as therapy for her upcoming album saying" - I'm sure she didn't use the betrayal as theraphy, she used the music as therapy. It should ready "She used her then-upcoming album as therapy, saying"
  • "was released selling" - comma after released
  • "well-received by critics although" - comma after critics
  • "charts until well into" - rm until (redundant)
  • "number of hits such as Beautiful, Fighter and a re-invention of Dirrty for her" - all three songs need to be in quotation marks
  • "In May Christina" - "In May of that year, Christina"
  • "kicked off in June" - "kicked off that June"
  • "Hot 100 list setting record sales" - comma after list
  • "begin in mid-2004 with a" - remove the dash
  • "because of Aguilera's vocal cord injuries suffered shortly before its opening date" - "because of the vocal cord injuries Aguilera suffered shortly before the tour's opening date"
  • This sentence "The single was originally going to be released to advertise 'Mercedes-Benz' but it was never pulled through as she had already started working on new material. " is redundant. Just say "However, the jingle was never completed, as Aguilera has already started working on new material"
  • "song is also a collaboration" - was also a
  • ""A Song for You" recorded for Hancock's album Possibilities, released in August 2005." should be ""A Song for You", recorded for Hancock's album Possibilities, was released in August 2005."
  • "You Wish upon a" - Upon should be capitalized
  • "#1 in 13 countries." - spell out thirteen
  • "since Stripped. Aguilera" - italicize Stripped
  • Beyonce should be Beyoncé
  • "effort B' Day" - "B' Day" should be in quotation marks
  • To be honest, this article needs massive more copyediting. I recommend taking it to the League of Copyeditors, who have volunteered to assist in articles like this one.
2. Factually accurate?:
  • Remove "It was later reported by the British tabloid newspaper The Sun that low ticket sales and lack of new material were actually the major contributing factors in the tour's cancellation. Aguilera has since denied the report.[41] " Tabloids are not reliable sources, so there is no need to refute their accusations
  • The subheading "[edit] 2004–2005: Post-Stripped activities and transition" is a little light on notation
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Neutral point of view?: Not so bad, but the following could use some improvement:
  • "During the album's promotion, her overtly sexual image became the subject of intense criticism and ridicule, although in recent times it has given her respect for promoting independence and female empowerment. " - This is thinly-vieled POV. I know earlier on people thought she looked empowering and classy, and there are people now that still think she's trash. I also question putting this in the lead, beyond saying the sexual nature of the album was controversial.
  • "although Aguilera's vocals were overlooked " - this is unlikely/untrue, and certainly opinion. At best, you could cite a respected critic who felt this way. Otherwise, remove it.
  • "Star", and she also collaborated" - that should be a period, not a comma
5. Article stability? I don't see any edit wars. Looks good.
6. Images?: Great!

This article is a huge undertaking, so don't feel discouraged by the failure. She is hugely popular and with a very intense career. Aditionally, articles about pop musicians are notorioulsy hard to maintain, as drive-by libel, unreference materialed, gossip, TMI and straight-out vandalism are daily occurences. The work done so far is commendable, but more work remains.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Education ?

The article notes she attended a high school, but nothing else. Did she graduate ? Attend college ?

She did attend high school, in a sense. It wasn't a physical high school, she was home schooled but it was high school level education and yes, she did graduate. She's never been to college, but she's mentioned she'd like to study psychology. The snare 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorsement Deals

Why is there no mention of Christina Aguilera's endorsement deals? Are they being seen as irrelevant?ThisIsMyName 13:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA copyedits

Aside from the suggestions at /Archive05 about improving the article to be at WP:GA status, I've removed a couple things such as the LAX club, which reads like a press release. I also removed the following, as it seems it should be in a different article or section (It was in "personal life" before)


Aguilera asked for the following message to be passed onto fans:

"I want to personally apologize to all of my fans for having to cancel my last two shows here in Melbourne. Unfortunately, I have fallen ill with a bad flu virus. This is one of the best cities in the world to perform in and I am truly disappointed that I won't be able to share my show with you all. Thank you for all of the continued love and support and I hope to perform for you all again next time."[1]

In August 2007, the adverts for her perfume range were revealed where she was seen to bare all.[2] She had joined forces with Procter & Gamble to launch her own self-titled fragrance. The advert would show Aguilera's bare back painted with an elaborate floral tattoo, alongside a caption saying "Sometimes it's all you need to wear".

--wL<speak·check> 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Right. There are disputes over this at two different lists: List of bisexual people, and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A. CAN A FRIGIN' SPECIFIC SOURCED STATEMENT ABOUT THIS BE WORKED IN THE ARTICLE OR DECIDED ON THE TALK SO THE DISPUTE ISN'T FORKED ELSEWHERE?

Thank you. Circeus 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A

Someone should really check all the references. Many do not support the contention that the people were gay or bisexual. Christina Aguilera, as I've argued above, shouldn't be on this list -- no source lists her as having had sex with a woman or as identifying as gay or bisexual. Jane Adams also shouldn't be on the list -- the source mentions a long-term, close friendship with a woman, but there is no indication that they were sexually active, and they certainly did not identify as gay or bisexual. I suspect many of the people on this list don't belong here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed someone reinserted CA without mentioning it here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should mention why you think having sex is the only benchmark for bisexuality? Do you have any support for that theory? I know people who have never had sex, but still have a sexuality. --David Shankbone 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course, a person is gay if he says he's gay, even if he's a virgin. CA hasn't said she's gay. She didn't say she'd ever had sex with a woman. She didn't say she ever wanted to. She didn't say she ever wanted to make out with a woman. No news source has ever said she is bisexual or gay (so far as I can tell), and to call her that is original research. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does a person need to declare "I'm bisexual!" instead of "I enjoy experimenting with my sexuality" to be considered bisexual? --David Shankbone 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that everyone who enjoys experimenting with their sexuality is bi? It's an unsourced interpretation, and it's OR. I've listed this case at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#.5B.5BList_of_gay.2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people.5D.5D. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a little disingenous to say that if a person says she likes to make out with women, would have sex with a woman, and enjoys "experimenting with her sexuality" that she isn't bisexual. If anyone makes those statements, but than follows it up with "I'm heterosexual" (which she also hasn't declared) it would sound silly. It is OR, in light of her own statements, to say she is heterosexual. That's a POV, and not one supported by her own words. --David Shankbone 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't claimed she's heterosexual. I'm saying we shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims about peoples sexuality. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
A wrong version has been protected. Feel free to get an admin to revert to another wrong version. In the mean time, please avoid pointless reverting. Circeus 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
From The Sun in London: "I find it hornier looking at women then men." "Two women is way sexier than two men in bed." I dunno - how many heterosexual women talk like that? I'll leave it for others to argue now... --David Shankbone 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a valid interpretation -- but unless you can find a source that says she's bi, it's still just your interpretation. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you find a source that says she's straight? Just curious... --David Shankbone 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No, and I wouldn't support listing her on a list of heterosexual musicians, either, unless a source can be found saying she's straight. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, article should not contradict each others. I say you go settle this at Christina Aguilera first. You'll settle the issue at List of bisexual people at the same time. Circeus 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

David, your arguments are a combination of original research and circular reasoning. Your contention that "completely heterosexual" women don't discuss certain subjects is patently original research. Is there even such a thing as "completely heterosexual" anyway? Why not list everyone who has a wiki bio? The rules of WP:BLP are quite clear, you cannot make a claim about someone's sexuality based upon OR and your own opinion on the subject. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. Reliable sources are what matter. - Crockspot 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Who's making OR here? If a woman says, "I find it hornier looking at women then men." "Two women is way sexier than two men in bed.", "I'd kiss a girl again. The Madonna thing was a one-off but girls are nice to kiss - nice and soft,", "I love experimenting with my sexuality. If that means girls then so be it. It would be wrong to hide this side of my personality.", they aren't straight. End of. We don't need an article where she explicitly says "I'm bisexual" to put her down as such. Marlon Brando never explicitly said anything to that effect either. If you want a source that makes such a claim for her, here. I can provide sources for all those quotes as well, and I had, until someone decided to take it off List of LGB people/A anyway, which I think is quite unjustified. Christina Aguilera likes girls - which is fine, good for her. I don't get why some people are determined to deny it as long as possible. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:SYNTH. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
All those quotes are properly sourced. You still haven't provided a source which says she's bisexual, and you don't get to decide someone else's sexual preference for them. End of. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't decide it, she decided it the day she decided to tell Zoo she liked staring at women more than men. You have some weird ideas of what constitutes heterosexuality of you think that does. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say she was hetero. I just said the claim that she's bi is an unsourced statement. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I just handed you three sources indicating she is! If a person says she enjoys looking at guys and girls, and would have sex with both, that's bisexual. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebus, how many more sources do you need, Quadell? Do you think she's lying when she says those things or something, just what exactly would constitute someone being bisexual if not those quotes? What would convince you? Do we have to get a video of her having sex with a man and woman before you'll accept the fact that's she bi? It seems like that's all you'll accept. Why doesn't "I love experimenting with my sexuality. If that means girls then so be it." Qualify for you? It's perfectly clear she is! The snare 21:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Throwing my hat in this ring is probably the last way I need to be spending my wikitime, but take Rosie O'Donell: she has had numerous on-air crushes on men, calls men hotties on the regular, plays straight women in movies (probably has kissed or at least done something sexually suggestive towards a man in a role (a la Xtina's MTV stunt)). I would venture to say she might have even had sex with a man before (many gays have pre-outting). Yet, does that make her hetero or bi? NO - she's gay. Sexual preference (or any other type of self-identification) is like a political party or religion - you can be hypocritcal, conflicting, misleading, and even confused - but you are what you say you are. Just because Guilliani's politics are all over the place, we can't call him Democratic. He's says he's Republican - he is. Same goes for Xtina. Now if a reputable source appears - it's all good in the hood.--Esprit15d 14:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] I agree with Esprit15d for the most part, though it should be noted that we can't call Guiliani Democratic because he's registered Republican, not because he says he's a Republican. Anyway, it's common for celebrities to make comments like the one Aguilera made, though they are considered straight by the general public (and some later contradict or recant the statements). I would say that we should not state Aguilera's sexuality explicitly unless she does, due to WP:BLP. 17Drew 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I am unfamiliar with any celebrities that have claimed, "I find it hornier looking at women then men.", and have subsequently been labelled as heterosexual. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Nelly Furtado, who said she was attracted to women and later clarified that she was straight. 17Drew 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Tom Cruise has an extensive collection of gay porn - yet insists that he is straight (and has successful lawsuits to prove his adamance in this regard).--Esprit15d 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Mellisa Ethridge's first "wife" claims she is straight and that she just somehow fell in love with Melissa on a photoshoot or something, but is actually straight. That claim is what dissolved their relationship.--Esprit15d 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm going to have to strongly agree with every word User:Quadell has stated on this matter. It's not silly for a woman to state to liking kissing a woman or seeing a woman naked, and yet still identifying herself as heterosexual (straight). I voted my support for the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A, but this is what I also stated in that review when it came to Christina Aguilera being listed on that list: "Support per Zythe. I would like to state, though, that I strongly feel what Raime is stating about Christina Aguilera on this matter. I know plenty of heterosexual (straight) women who have admitted to liking kissing girls, but that they know that they are straight or consider themselves straight because the sexual and or romantic attraction to women just isn't as intense and that they could never truly be romantically happy with a woman. Some of them have even had sex with at least one woman. Likewise, I know plenty of gay men or lesbian women who state that they themselves have gotten a little sexual pleasure from being with the opposite sex, but that they don't consider themselves bisexual because it just didn't feel like home being with the opposite sex romantically. Again, there was that intense-factor brought up and how when they tried to be romantically happy with the opposite sex, it didn't/wouldn't work, so it is complex, of course, sometimes as who to label or imply as/is a bisexual when some people just don't see themselves as bisexual due to their majority-sexual preference, even though there was a little sexual and or romantic attraction in those cases to the sex they do not favor. Anyway, sorry that I went a little off-topic there. This is a great list. And as I stated before, I support it."

Basically (without trying to throw out an ego), I have much experience on the matter of how people truly feel they sexually are, and I completely understand where User:Quadell is coming from on this issue. Flyer22 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: There was a discussion about this in /Archive01#Possibly_Gay, the result of it was somewhere along the lines of "If any performer similar to what she does what asked about her sexuality, they would give the similar answer". --wL<speak·check> 07:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(RfC response) Based on what I know of WP:BLP, it would not be permitted for us to characterize her as "bisexual" without a clear and explicit statement from her which substantiates that, almost word for word. Having said that, I can see no objections to this article including the quote that she likes to experiment with her sexuality. That is a direct statement from the source, but it isn't completely clear with exactly how she likes to experiment with her sexuality, and I think it would be original research to go the further step to identify her sexuality in any way other than she has explicitly stated herself. John Carter 16:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well...I don't think it's wrong to characterize her as bisexual, but as per a strict interpretation of WP:BLP (and sexuality is always one of the most strictly enforced things per that), we can't. What we can say is something like, "though Aguilera has not outright stated that she is bisexual, she has made comments that have indicated a willingness to experiment outside the boundaries of what would normally be considered "straight". For example, in a (whenever) interview with (whatever) magazine, she stated 'Blah blah blah, girls are hot.' Later that year, she told (another) magazine that she 'would kiss girls again.'" Does that work? It satisfies both sides by specifically saying that she hasn't confirmed her sexual preferences outright, while also stating that she has expressed an interest in girls that goes beyond what is generally considered "straight" or "hetero". How's that? ♠PMC♠ 08:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a list of "LGB" which doesnt just mean Lesbigaybi, it means "not straight" largely, how is inclusion an issue of interpretation?~ZytheTalk to me! 18:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT does not stand for "not straight" - it stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. Xtina has called herself none of the above.--Esprit15d 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if she has not called herself "bisexual" then it is inappropriate (and a violation of WP:BLP) to assert that she is bisexual. However, if there are reputable sources, including her own comments, that indicate she has had sexual relationships with women, it would not violate WP:BLP to write that she has had "same sex experiences" or something to that effect. Sexual identity is very different than sexual behavior. Like the Giuliani analogy above, if Aguilera does not consider herself bisexual, it is a violation to print that. (Rayraymitts 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree that it is entirely inappropriate to include her in this categorization if she has not called herself that.--Gloriamarie 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

References

As this is the third GA review, I will give you some advice; tidy up the references section. It's long enough, but reviewers like to see the same format for all the references. This is a pain, I know, but it will help your cause.

It also looks like there is a lot of discussion going on, which might make this article appear unstable. I wish you the best. --andreasegde 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to User:RFC_bot, the problem has passed. Isn't the appearance of references an featured article criteria, not good article? --wL<speak·check> 02:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Bisexual Musicians Tag

Xtina shows up on the List of bisexual people page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bisexual_people , but she doesnt have an LGBT persons tag at the bottom of the main page. Should one of these two pages be corrected? I suggest this page carry a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bisexual_musicians tag.

This issue has been discussed at legnth and nixed. See the archives.--Esprit15d 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

but she;s not bisexual--Chronisgr 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The article is pretty much there in terms of GA status, with a couple of minor issues, mostly reference citations. The prose is reasonably good, though I cleaned up some of the grammar in a series of minor edits; nothing real major. The photos are excellent and well tagged, and the placement of music clips contributes to the content of the article in a good, positive way.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Some specific issues include:

  • There's something really queer going on with the references. The number in the 'references' section doesn't correspond to the number in the text (inline). I have no idea what is going on here? For the most part, the references themselves appear to correlate, although the reference on the statement: "E! News reported that they are expecting their first child together" does not cite what is being stated. It is cited by reference #13, but the reference that appears to cover this statement is actually #9.
  • While referencing is very good, there's still a lot of major unsourced information which still must be dealt with. Specifically, there's a lot of statements about song ratings and rankings that are unsourced, like "Her singles "Genie in a Bottle", "What a Girl Wants" and "Come on Over Baby (All I Want Is You)" topped the Billboard Hot 100 during 1999 and 2000, and "I Turn to You" reached #3. Aguilera won the "Best New Artist" award at the 2000 Grammy Awards, and she was nominated for "Best Female Pop Vocal Performance" for "Genie in a Bottle"."
  • "Ricky Martin asked her to duet with him on the track "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely" from his album Sound Loaded; released in 2001 as the album's second single, it reached the top five in the United Kingdom and Germany, top twenty in the U.S., and top forty in Canada, Switzerland, and Australia." -- no source.
  • ""Lady Marmalade" hit number one on the Hot 100 for five weeks and reached number one in eleven other countries," -- no source.
  • "Steve Kurtz's influence in matters of the singer's creative direction, the role of being her exclusive personal manager and overscheduling had in part caused her to seek legal means of terminating their management contract." -- no source; could be construed as POV.
  • "Initially, the raunchy image had a negative effect on Aguilera in the U.S., especially after the release of her controversial "Dirrty" music video. She denied that this change was a matter of publicity, claiming that the image better reflected her true personality than did the image she cultivated back in 1999. While the video for "Dirrty" became very popular on MTV, it disappointed on the U.S. singles chart. However, the single was a hit worldwide, reaching number one in the UK and Ireland. The album reached the top five on the U.K., U.S. and Canadian album charts, though it was initially considered a "sophomore slump." -- no source.
  • No source on the 2004 presidential election advertising role.
  • "The single was released in late 2006. The single debuted at number #20 in the UK based on downloads alone, then jumped to number #8 the next week." -- no source.
  • "Mayor of Hollywood, Johnny Grant, announced that in 2008, Aguilera will get a star in the Hollywood Walk of Fame." -- no source.
  • "She's mentioned in an interview that her agenda for 2003 were touring and acting." -- This just doesn't seem phrased right. For one, it's in the past, but it's written more like it's a present statement.
  • "During the album's promotion, her overtly sexual image became the subject of intense criticism and ridicule," -- this has no source, and could very likely be construed as POV. Plus, it's in the introduction. Either find a source or get rid of it.

Those are the major issues. I would still recommend going through the prose again, giving it a good copyedit, as well as finding sources for any other major items I might have missed. It's pretty close to GA right now, so I will put this on hold for one week and review it again on October 9, 2007 (unless you contact me sooner). Cheers! Dr. Cash 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Failing as a GA, as the hold has expired. CloudNine 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article at Christina Aguilera (Perfume) is very brief and contains no information to substantiate the notability of that product. I suggest that it would be better dealt with as a sentence on this article. B1atv 09:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The article is so short and it's notability do not passed the criteria. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Let the two topics separate!!! --Olliyeah 14:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and completed the merger. There were two editors in favour and one against; the one against didn't give any argument as to why the merger shouldn't go ahead while the two in favour did. It goes without saying that I'm obviously content for somebody to tidy up what I have done if they feel they can. B1atv 12:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pregnatcy confirmed by Xtina

Many Media outlets have gotten word from an interview with glamour magazine that she is pregnant. Just help wki find the best report on it for the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextwa (talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pregnatcy confirmed by Xtina

Many Media outlets have gotten word from an interview with glamour magazine that she is pregnant. Just help wki find the best report on it for the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextwa (talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop The Vandalism

Please lock the Christina Aguilera page. Someone has been vandalizing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextwa (talk • contribs)

It has been semi-protected for two weeks. Acalamari 21:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey

in this web side http://covemagazine.com/100vocalists.html christina was #1 in the 100 Outstanding pop Vocalists and I think we should be able to see this and this web side dosent has it so if anyone that has an acount could put it in it would be coo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.185.84 (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

read the article; a ref. to the site u mentioned is already included perma-link. — HTurtle (talk2me • sign) 08:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Heritage Mistake

It says on Christina Aguileras page that her mother is Irish, African and Argentinian. She is not, Her Mother is 100% Irish and heres the source http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000774,00.html?promoid=googlep thats the final proof because she mentioned it herself in an interview, it proves her mother is just Irish and her maternal grandparents immigrated from county clare. please change it I can not because the page is locked... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekromeo18 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

External links: MySpace?

I think the link to the official French website should rather be exchanged with sth. like >>Christina Aguilera's official space* on MySpace<< (as it correlates w/ the first line in the WP:EL - avoid MySpace policy due to the 'official'-part). At least, I'd suggest to remove the French link as there are some 11 non-English official websites and I don't see - hi, Canadians - why exactly this one should be pointed out (if at all, promoting the Spain version would make more sense). — HTurtle (talk2me • sign) 02:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC) – *) or however a place on MySpace would be dubbed..

Its a boy

I think we should update the page. It has been confirmed by Christina Milian that Xtina is having a boy. She was at the baby shower. Several media outlets have posted the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextwa (talk • contribs)


I wouldn't consider that a 'confirmation', only a rumor. 68.72.1.3 (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BacktoBasicsOpener.jpg

Image:BacktoBasicsOpener.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)