Talk:Britney Spears

ongoing legal cases for children, etc
Could we make a small mention of her reported lesbian romps and ongoing (new) battles by K Fed for custody? - daily telegraph, not too dodgy a source, says K Fed is seeking custody again, due to her wild behaviour etc. The article at the moment has only got as far as march with the custody battle, inaccurately saying all was settled between them about the kids then. If it was, looks like it's far from settled now. Plus lebian romps reported Lesbianism is not libel to most people. Plus the ongoing legal battle is not stendentious to report is it?Merkinsmum 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say a big no to the lesbian rumors. I think we should keep the lesbian rumors out of it (that's not factual information) and I really don't think we should use the term "Wild behaviour" since that is a relative term and Kevin himself has been seen partying at strip clubs. I don't have a problem with someone updating the page for a more accurate description but I think it should be non POV and worded carefully so that it doesn't seem biased. There should be no addition to the article about lesbian romps since that is purely speculation and rumors and hasn't been confirmed at all. But I do think the custody battle should be added to the article. Just alittle snippet information about Kevin filing for custody. I think that would be the best way to go. Skinwalker03 20:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless the lesbian story exploded or was used in the custody trial, there really isn't much use for it. That OK! Magazine story IS noteworthy though.  She contacted them.  It is not second-hand information.  This story exploded.  It was one on one, and goes into more of her erratic behavior.  It's from the people who were there and there company one by one reported the story.  She has said nothing about it.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maddyfan (talk • contribs).
 * I don't think the ongoingness/resurgence of the custody issues is mentioned, it claims all was settled in march. That should be mentioned as ongoing.  I was sort of joking about including the lesbian bit:)Merkinsmum 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia, tabloid, gossip should be avoided in this article
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. You are editing an article of a biography of the singer Britney Spears. Please remember that informations that you are intending to add into the article has encyclopedic merit. This is wikipedia, not Entertainment Tonight. Trivia, tabloid and the latest gossips are best to be avoided in this article. Just imagine yourself doing a school assignment on Britney Spears, the teacher is not going to care who she slept with. So please make sure any information that you wish to add is noteworthy and has encyclopedic merit. Besides, I've just nominated this article for GA. Let's hope it goes well. Oidia (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention. Fansites and forums are not reliable sources and should never be used for referencing. Also a lot of the times, "gossip magazines" are not very reliable for information either. Generally speaking, ones like Time magazine and People magazine are reliable. But ones like Who magazine or Famous magazine or NW magazine are not that reliable. Oidia (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When I was at the supermarket today, just about all the "scandal sheet" magazines at the checkout seemed to be cover-featuring the alleged conflicts and controversies involving Britney and her kids. *Dan T.* 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GA comments
Hey, my comments vs GA criteria etc..
 * The lead needs work, it should not simply focus on her album and single sales, it ought to cover in more detail some of her other work and her personal life - it needs to adequately summarise the article as a whole.
 * Done and summarised. Oidia (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Spears' brother Bryan works as one of her managers and her sister Jamie-Lynn is an actress and singer." - perhaps JL doesn't need citation, but Bryan being a manager does.
 * Reworked and cited. Tabercil 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does ref [8] refer to all of second para of Childhood... section? If so, put it at the end. If not, you need to cite claims like "Spears was an accomplished gymnast, attending gymnastics classes until age nine and competing in state-level competitions." and "Although she was considered too young to join the series at the time,"
 * Fixed. Yes the Yahoo ref is for the entire paragraph. Oidia (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Spears briefly joined the all-female pop group Innosense. A few years later, she decided to go solo by recording a demo tape, landing her in the hands of Jive Records. She was signed to that label and began touring American venues for a series of concerts sponsored by American teen magazines, before joining *NSYNC and becoming their opening act." - no citation.
 * Added citations to the 3 sentences. Oidia (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "see also ...Baby One More Time and Oops!... I Did It Again" - usually indent using a single colon, and capitalise See also... apply this to all instances.
 * Fixed and capitalized. Oidia (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "...but lost to Christina Aguilera." - citation required.
 * Fixed. Tabercil 23:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "...and received two Grammy nominations for Oops!... I Did It Again in the categories of Best Pop Vocal Album and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance." - again, citation needed.
 * Fixed Tabercil 23:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "It had a successful debut at number one in the U.S., selling 745,744 units during its first week, surpassing Michael Jackson's album Invincible." cite!
 * Cited. Oidia (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Should note that Spears didn't write or co-write Toxic, seeing as it was so successful.
 * Added. Oidia (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree with the editor here... Our article doesn't imply that, and making a note of it seems awkward and out of place to me. Maybe this one can slide. --Circasix 13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could link Federline first time.
 * Fixed. Tabercil 03:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 2004–2005: Greatest Hits: My Prerogative section needs citation, it even has [citation needed] tag.
 * Cited. Oidia (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1991–1993 etc can be written 1991–93.
 * Fixed. Oidia (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is Flight Attendant capitalised?
 * Fixed. Tabercil 03:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "At the age of eighteen, she was the youngest person in SNL history to have acting and musical performing duties on the same show." - proof required.
 * I cannot find any reference for this statement so I decided to remove it from the article. Oidia (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "She has grossed over US$150 million from tour ticket sales and over $45 million in merchandise from her tours." - cite these claims.
 * I cited it with 2 sources. Oidia (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "The song's music video showed an actress playing what could be construed as a Britney look-alike with certain physical features resembling Spears" - this really does need citation otherwise it's original research.
 * Cited with the same ref as the last sentence. That ref states the actress' tattoo resemble Britney's. Oidia (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "The footage of this quote later appeared in Michael Moore's documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11." - cite.
 * Cited. Oidia (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ref [61] needs to be placed according to WP:CITE.
 * Fixed. Oidia (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "...began to swirl.", "...left rehab..." - not encyclopaedic.
 * Fixed. Oidia (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Section called Guest Appearances should be appearances per WP:HEAD.
 * Fixed. Oidia (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a music video section then summarise the main points (e.g. school uniform, red latex suit etc). Don't just point simply to a fork.
 * Done and summarised. Oidia (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't wikilink individual years.
 * Fixed. Oidia (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Stray commas in the Further reading section.
 * Reformated to Harvard format. Tabercil 03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Constrain external links strictly in accordance with WP:EL
 * Knocked out 2 links which are dodgy. Tabercil 03:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ref [1] should specify frames 19 & 20 otherwise it appears odd.
 * Fixed. Tabercil 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Use a name rather than simple URL in references.
 * All fixed. Oidia (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ref [18] doesn't work for me.
 * I checked and it works. Oidia (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ref [72] doesn't appear to link to where required.
 * Dug out copy in the Wayback Machine and linked to it. Not sure if this new link does the job. Tabercil 00:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ref [75] has no title.
 * This refers to a different reference that looks like it has since been deleted. It'll have to be dug out of the article's history. Tabercil 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Found it. Tabercil 14:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Refs [80] and [81] need a title.
 * Fixed. Tabercil 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ref [86] is dead.
 * Fixed. It is now Alive! Oidia (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ref [87] doesn't appear to link to where required.
 * Fixed. Oidia (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Refs [89] and [92] don't link to anything Spear-specific.
 * Fixed and fixed. Oidia (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So, a lot to consider so for the moment I have to fail the article. Please consider that I also took the request for FA consideration into account when reviewing the article. The Rambling Man 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks The Rambling Man. Alright, time to get to work. Oidia (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Folks, as you fix the problems noted, please mention it above as I've done. That way we know what is still outstanding. One problem we'll have is the reference numbers Rambling Man provides are specific to the version he saw; as we add citations for the missing items, the numbers will change. I would suggest looking at this version of the page when you go to track down the problems with his numbered references. And for god's sakes, make the fix to the current version! Tabercil 23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally. All done!! Oidia (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaked song over the internet
A new Britney song has been leaked on to the internet today. Should we add it so the article or not? Some sites are calling the song "Baby Boy", "Dear Boy" and "You Desert Me". You can hear it over at PerezHilton.com and Breatheheavy.com it's a 3 minute and 5 second clip Skinwalker03 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question, no it should not be added. Neither of these sites are reliable sources for anything, and they have frequently been in error. Even if it is true, there is nothing unique or special about this particular leak - they happen every day to artists of various stature. If and when the song is released, it might be appropriate to mention the "leaking" in the article on the song and/or album.  Risker 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree to Risker, it's best that we don't mention specific tracks until it is actually released. Similarly songs like sometimes, you drive my crazy, lucky, stronger, overprotected, im not a girl not yet a woman, i love rock n roll, boys, everytime, etc, should not be mentioned because it's not noteworthy enough for this biography article. There are already articles for many individual songs, so we can create an article for the new track when it is actually released. Oidia (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image removal?
Just wondering why the image I added to the Personal Struggles section was removed. The image itself hasn't been removed from WP, just removed from the article.

I don't want to be all personal about having it be *my* image or anything, but I do feel that as the article documents a living person who still has an active career, images should be added to portray all the stages that are described in the article. If the information is considered relevant to the article, I fail to see why images representing that information are not relevant. Xoxixox 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's been deleted on the basis that no source was provided. And even if it is readded, you're still going to have to argue that a free-use image can't be found. Tabercil 22:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but according to Speedy_deletion the image should have been tagged as unsourced and then, if no action was taken, could be speedy deleted after seven days. Considering I uploaded the image on August 23, that seems a bit impossible. I see absolutely NO justification for this image having been deleted, since the reason for deleting the image was given as "i4" but the procedure outlined in that category was not even CLOSE to properly followed. Xoxixox 00:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um...I not only provided the source of the image, but also a detailed rationale as to why no free use image was available. It took 20 minutes to find the appropriate templates and type up a rationale and I'm NOT in the mood to do that again right now.

I'm siding with Xoxixox on this one. It's fine by me if you add it back. --Circasix 13:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) I want to reach some sort of consensus though. If nobody objects to reposting it within 3 days from today, I will repost it, otherwise I'm up for a discussion on the merits of adding recent pictures. Xoxi 10:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam
Please can someone remove the "You can check out some great pictures of her working on her latest music video on www.24forums.com" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * done and done. Oidia (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

GRAMMAR! Please read.
Large grammar and spelling mistakes are usually easy to identify when browsing an article, but my biggest pet peeve is quotations. It is ALWAYS correct to include a period inside of a quotation unless it is followed by a parenthetical citation. This is true in academia, in fiction, in memoirs - its a universal law of writing. However, Wikipedians often write:

Spears said, "I love my babies".

As opposed to

Spears said, "I love my babies."

Since all of our citations are reference notes, not parenthetical, in any and every case the period should rest inside of the quotations. Now, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so it could be there's an article on this I'm missing out on. If so, please direct me to the rule that says how to use periods in quotations. But if not, PLEASE start fixing these mistakes because they look very unprofessional. Any of you who have gone through at least high school should be aware of this anyway! Thanks. --Circasix 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just went and browsed through 3 celebrity feature articles. And all of those articles have both ." and ". in the end of sentences. So it's probably not that important to achieve consistency throughout the article. Although to my knowledge, Spears said "I love my 2 sons".(ref) is the correct format. Oidia (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't judge our articles by others. Just because they aren't grammatically correct doesn't mean we can't be. And for the record, unless there's a Wikipedia policy stating otherwise, the period inside the quotations is correct. Just Google it and you'll see! Thanks for understanding. :) I look forward to a grammatically improved article to help us achieve FA status! :) --Circasix 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Have fun :) Oidia (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha... per this website (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm), it looks like the confusion might be a continental thing. So Spears' favorite song is "I'm A Slave 4 U." is just as correct as Spears' favorite song is "I'm a Slave 4 U". However, it would be definitely incorrect to write Spears said, "I love my babies". --Circasix 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know why. "I'm A Slave 4 U" is a NAME of a song. Hence why the full stop comes after the close speech marks. All names have full stops after the speech mark. Also on wikipedia it's popular to italicise names. And when someone makes a statement, it's a quote so that's why the full stop is inside the speech marks. Oidia (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm glad I could help you figure that out. --Circasix 05:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * US style is to always put the period (full stop) before the quotation mark, whether the quote is a full sentence or a single word. However, I believe the Wikipedia style book recommends logical quoting, in which the period is included within the quotation only if it is logically part of the quotation.  In other words, if the quote includes the period, the period goes inside the quotation marks (and subsumes the period for the enclosing sentence).  Otherwise, the only period comes after the quotation mark.  Thus, for example, hypothetically:


 * Spears considers Federline her "bête noire".


 * but


 * Spears said, "Kevin is and always will be my bête noire."


 * That is, assuming she would use a term like "bête noire". BrianTung 20:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Spears said, "I love my babies." IS grammatically correct. Since she stated that phrase or that sentence, we are going to write it as such. The punctuation period (.) must be included in the quotation mark("); however, if it's a word being quoted, like "'bête noire'.", then it's correct. If you're having edit wars because of that having such sites to cite, then, read an English book that would suffice every editors' mind. In addition, with that consistency thing, yes, we should, for Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and many searchers depend on this site, so that our articles, especially their grammar, should not be misleading so they will not cause other people to use such erroneous punctuations. BritandBeyonce 07:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you've just violently agreed with what I wrote. BrianTung 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Try not to use the word Britney in the article
When talking about Britney Spears, it's best to Spears, and not Britney. Using Britney makes the article look unprofessional and it gives a lack of consistency. Also we don't need to use Spears in every single sentence, use it in the lead sentence in a paragraph, then start using she and her for the rest of the paragraph. Oidia (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural influences
OK, I know that the Public image section was a disaster because it became almost impossible to achieve NPOV. There have been many suggestions in this talk page to have a section outlining Spears' contributions to pop culture. So this new section titled Cultural influences should be a great addition to the article, and it's not hard to achieve NPOV for describing the impact of Britney Spears on pop culture.

To start off the section, we should gather points, information, and sources that will be put in it. To start off I have this: (Since Maddyfan thinks this statement is out of date for the introduction and I personally think it sounds awkward in the Career development section, that's why it's a good idea to have a section like this)
 * Forbes ranked Spears as the world's most powerful celebrity in 2002.

Please DO NOT go ahead and create that section yet. Start throwing points, info and references here in the talk page first, then we'll evaluate whether if it is neutral and noteworthy, and then we add it into the section. And remember to have a RELIABLE SOURCE to back up every points that we wish to contribute to this section. Having a creditable source can justisfy the neutrality of this section. Oidia (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the suggested section really amounts to a proposed claim about Spears' "cultural influence" built from facts relating to her career and reception in popular culture. This sounds suspiciously like the kind of original research proscribed by WP:SYN, and I think it would add nothing to this article.--Agnaramasi 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why we are brainstorming here first and then evaluate if there's a need for this section. Oidia (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention. Judging by other celebrity feature articles like Kylie Minogue and Gwen Stefani, it is possible to achieve NPOV, and have no original research in a section like this. We just have to work together to make it perfect. Oidia (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, that was the first thing to go last time. Just because you find one reviewer saying, "Oh she did this," doesn't really confirm any impact.  68.82.82.248 08:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

New Britney single leaked and is available on Z100.com in New York. I think with all the buzz right now, it would be useful to add this link: http://www.z100.com/pages/britney_premiere.html

Michael.reichard 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears alias
Is it true that the fake personna of Britney Spears is called "Brittany Person", similar to Christina Aguilera's "Xtina"? Kaksisi 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Spears' should be Spears's
Have a look at Apostrophe as well as http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html and http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-possessive.htm Also refer to the book Eats shoots and leaves. Also note the the article about her 5th album has been correctly moved to indicate this. Also note the BBC pages on her,

Please don't mis-correct these back to Spears' just because many people make the same error. Only plurals ending with S loose the post-apostrophe s MrMarmite 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, the wiki page you quote says

"If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by University of Delaware, The Guardian, Emory University's writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; James's house, or James' house, depending on which pronunciation is intended."

So it seems to be up to the writer's discretion about whether they think the word is difficult to pronounce with the added 's'. A lot of the sources you give seem to back you up though, lol so I'm confused now. It looks wierd to me with the extra s. Because I'm not so used to it being written like that- 65,800,000 basic google search results for Spears', 273,000 for Spears's.  Like you say, that doesn't mean they're right, though. http://www.csbsju.edu/writingcenters/handouts/apostrophes.htm really seems up to what the writer's individual 'ear' thinks sounds right.Merkinsmum 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the 6th paragraph in this article, the writer used Spears'. Oidia (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was drawn here from the Language Reference Desk, and I will just say that both ways of forming the possessive occur in well-written literature. To say that one or the other is incorrect is quite simply not true. Have fun duking it out. Strad 04:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * hehe, yeah. I asked about this in the reference desk and there were varying answers. Have a look Oidia (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, after reading the many answers in the reference desk, the correct one is Spears's. Oidia (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that may be the "proper" way but it simply looks ugly to my eyes. I've go through the article and reworked the text involved to remove all the "s's" words that I could. Only one left is the link to Britney Spears's fifth studio album, and that'll end up being renames once it actually gets released. Tabercil 04:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This has made me think about it. Plural possessives with an s always take a lone apostrophe. Speaking for myself, I've applied this to other possessives ending with s which are pronounced with a single s ...and have never been nettled over it. Something like lens's would be an exception for me. That said, I guess it's ok to add an apostrophe-s to a given or family name ending in an 's' but since I'd tend to pronounce the possessive of her name with a singly-voiced s at the end I'd likewise tend write it Spears'. Looks to me like taste and regional pronunciations likely have something to do with the varying approaches. Gwen Gale 04:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to see how various sources tackle the question. The BBC's most recent article on Britney has as it's lead sentence: "By now, you will know that Britney Spears' much-vaunted comeback appearance..." while the New York Times says in its review of her movie Crossroads: "Ms. Spears's style of acting is exactly what you would expect from this highly disciplined performer...". So there you have two of the most visible news sources going in entirely opposite directions. Tabercil 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, especially as the BBC usually uses the Spears's form. MrMarmite 12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that is not the only story on the BBC website which does not follow the apostrophe with the letter s. (And I'm only on page 8 of 46 of the results of a search of all the pages on the BBC news site with the phrase "Britney Spears" present). Tabercil 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

VMA
yo this needs a current event regarding 2007 video music awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.128.215 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Spears' and Spears's

 * You might want to double check how you placed this tag, as nothing is showing up at RFCbio. Jeffpw 07:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Original Doll
I put in a section about her unreleased album 'The Original Doll' I think it's notewhorty because Britney confirmed the album itself and there were songs recorded but it was eventual canceled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing of it is, you didn't provide a reference to anything except the chart performance of Got Me High, so that's all that could remain in the article. Please provide a reliable source and it can be reinserted. Jeffpw 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I could find this link:http://www.8notes.com/biographies/spears.asp#Original_Doll

I hope that this link is enough to put the original doll in the article. User:Ikkomuitnederland 11.40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Attention new editors - correct way to cite websites
I have noticed that many new editors simply put (ref) [url] (/ref) when they cite a website. This is not the correct method for wikipedia.

When you are citing a website, you need these information:
 * the publisher of the source (which is the website itself)
 * the author that wrote the source (usually "editors from the website")
 * the date of publication (if not available, then leave it)
 * the retrieval date (the date that you found the source)
 * the url (of course)
 * the title (a name for the source)

Now, click on "edit" and see how you should code in all the information for citing the source

Thanks. Oidia (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

TIME Magazine says
''Her first single and first four albums made their debut at No.1. Since then Spears has sold 76 million records and amassed a $150 million fortune.'' The source here (go to the 20th slide) says she sold 76 million RECORDS, not albums. Please DO NOT change it to albums. Thanks. Oidia (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh! After the release of her next album, her record sales figure will definitely change. So we should keep an eye out for reliable sources that provides an up-to-date sales figure. Oidia (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

VMA performance
I think that should be left out of Return to Music. That section needs to be as simple and to-the-point as possible. It should include news on the album, single and any career news that mention what she was doing without saying she bombed or whatever. That should be left for the VMA page and the single since she was performing Gimme More. especially once the album comes out, the info will not be relevant. It will be out-of-date and useless. The info on RTM needs to be so that it will not need to be changed eventually once her career will fully kick in to front-burner.Soapfan06 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the level of mention is rather appropriate right now. Her performance at the 2007 VMAs gathered as much publicity as her performance in a prior VMA... you know, the one where she kissed Madonna? That earlier VMA appearance is summarized in one sentence at this point, so the same for the 2007 VMA seems suitable. Tabercil 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that is only acceptable until she does more career-related moves. Return to music should only include the real important info. The fact that she failed to repeat her previous winnings should be excluded since it does not promote anything good and it seems to me like the whole section needs to be more swayed towards the basic info since the rest of the current news has a negative spin on it. It should definitely be excluded once the album comes out. Nobody will care by then what happened at an awards how most thought was bad enough as it was. Soapfan06 06:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * True. Because currently the "Return to music" section is rather short, and not many info are available yet, that one sentence describing the VMA performance should stay for time being.
 * It all depends on how long this section is going to become in the end. If the section becomes very long (and I have a feeling that it will), then we should remove these very minor details. If the section is not long in the end, then those minor details can probably stay.
 * On a side note, the previous sections "Early commercial success" and "Career development" only mentioned the singles: "...Baby One More Time", "Oops!... I Did It Again", "I'm A Slave 4 U" and "Toxic". So I'd say that we should only mention "Gimme More" for the "Return to music" section and cut out all the other singles. Oidia (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The performance generated a significant amount of press, so it should be mentioned, even after "more career-related moves". --Phirazo 03:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

single a success?
Someoone had put in the article that 'gimme more' was a success with high chart posiitions. That's not what I've read and the sources they gave didn't back that up. So I removed it, hope people don't mind too much. Sorry if this was rude for me to do, but I've only heard it being panned. If it has done well I'm sure sources could easily be found which say that.Merkinsmum 20:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It topped at 16 on billboard, anything in top 40 is considered a success. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003641979 Dalielah 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * hmm, I think the best solution is to not mentioning whether the single is a success or not. Just put in sourced factual information like sales figures and position on charts. And then let the reader themselves decide whether or not it's a success. Oidia (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

News Flash: Britney Wants to Kill Fed-Ex?
Report in the media alleging she wanted to hire a hit-man to O.J. him &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * note - this is trashy tabloid stuff; it likely isn't true and may have arisen out of speculation resulting from the OJ Simpson memoriablia robbery. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 19:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to TMZ, it's not true. Rumors are out of control about Britney Spears right now.  &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

More news about Britney
See here for some more info. Apparently, as of the moment, Mrs. Spears has been banned from the Chateau Marmont hotel, her lawyer has dumped her, she is likely to lose custody of her kids, Playboy might not want to take pictures of her naked anymore (gee, big surprise), and she's been holding emergency meetings with Fed-Ex, apparently over her kids. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the news flash! links, please. :-) Jeffpw 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Management
Since she was only managed by them for a month and this does not really belong in this section anyway, I suggest we delete this useless info.Soapfan06 22:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly does belong, it's very much part of her struggle in the return to music. MrMarmite 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Behaviour
I feel that a few sentances should be included about her suitability as a role-model for Young People given her life-style. Webpendragon 09:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)webpendragon 22/09/07

Introduction
I added a reference to all the trouble around Spears to the introduction. The last few years, and especially this year, Spears has only been known to the public as that troubled star of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looskuh (talk • contribs) 10:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Britney Spears MTV 2007.jpg
Does anyone like that picture? My head says "ill, gross" everytime I look at it. When we have a new, better looking image of her recent career activities, we should replace this existing one. Oidia (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. What on earth could be wrong with Britney in underpants????? It subtly illustrates everything going on with Britney right now, from her poor MTV appearance itself, to the birth of her children and resulting weight gain and her chopping off her hair and needing those awful extensions. It positively encapsulates Miss Spears, and as such should remain, and possibly replace the main image of the page. Jeffpw 12:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What you said is all true, but I started to avoid "Return to music" section because that picture really turns me off. IMHO I enjoy starring at Britney Spears in underpants, when she used to be good looking. Like these pictures, . That MTV VMA one though, it's not very pleasant to look at. Yes you are right, it does show the consequences of her actions (giving birth resulting to weight gain, drugs, too much red bull) But don't use it as the main, it's horrible. Oidia (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Gross. Also it's a fair-use image, I thought that wasn't allowed. Kraft. 02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-free media is probably OK in this context, since there isn't a free alternative and it serves an encyclopedic purpose. --Phirazo 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, It is only being used in the infobox to show what she looks like. There is a free alternative Image:Britney-Spears082.jpg that can be used for that purpose and it will be replaced per WP:NFCC policy - don't use a fair use image when a free image is available. --Eqdoktor 09:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant in the "2007: Return to music" section, not as the lead photo. I agree that the lead photo should be a free one, but I think an image of her performance at the 2007 Video Music Awards serves an encylopedic purpose that words alone do not. --Phirazo 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?
Not even a mention of her shaving off her hair?? It was on the front cover of every magazine! It deserves some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.163 (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it was in here at some point in the past, but some of Britney's more rabid fans tend to delete negative material. I'm surprised that the reference to her performance at the 2007 MTV VMAs hasn't been deleted.--Wee Charlie 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

this article is ridiculous. britney is in the news everyday for being a weirdo, and yet it factors very little into this article. the personal struggles section is tiny, and people ARE trying to get the VMA thing taken out. wikipedia articles are supposed to be NPOV, but not celebratory. at this point britney is FAR more notable for doing stupid things than for music. she hasn't released a record in almost 4 years! come on now. here's an example of how NPOV this article is: "Spears's marriage to back-up dancer Kevin Federline and the birth of her two children, Sean Preston and Jayden James, put her music career on hold. The couple's divorce in November 2006 was highly publicized and followed by an on-going legal battle for custody of their two children." her MARRIAGE and CHILDREN put her music career on hold?! who believes that tripe? her children and marriage never kept her from partying all hours of the night and abusing drugs and alcohol. i don't think ANYONE except the most delusional would believe her music career has been at a standstill due to her children and marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.11.149 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the last paragraph is in a dilliusional world, i don't agree with britney but what your trying to say is it is her fault. Like when everything that went wrong when she was with K-Fed. I love brit, yes she did shit wrong but fuck it like nothing we can do now can change her comeback her proper one!!!! Just wait and see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.184.159 (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Britney shaving her hair off IS mentioned and was never removed. "The following night, Spears went to a haircutting studio in Tarzana, California and shaved her hair off with clippers."
 * "Spears's marriage to back-up dancer Kevin Federline and the birth of her two children, Sean Preston and Jayden James, put her music career on hold" - it clearly states that her marriage and childern put her music career on hold. Now, drugs, alcohol, partying are not music careers.
 * So please read the article again, more carefully this time, before jumping to a judgement so quickly. Oidia (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Train wreck and white elephant
This girl is a train wreck in full color. Yet the article doesn't get this across and completely ignores the matter in the lead. Its like a big white elephant in the room that no one talks about. --Blue Tie 23:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't talk about it because its interpretation not fact.--Agnaramasi 23:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not quite true. It is a fact. How that fact is interpreted might be open to discussion.  But probably not for True Believers. --Blue Tie 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with the following policies -
 * Neutral point of view
 * No original research
 * Verifiability
 * Biographies of living persons

Unsupported tabloid libel has no place in Wikipedia. --Eqdoktor 07:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievably Biased Article - Not Fair
This article is solely written and guarded by Britney's stubborn and standoffish fans; I do not see NPOV at all. They try to eliminate every negative material on Britney, but everyone knows what kind of person Britney is and we all know the schizophrenic thngs she does. Where is the information of Britney being a no-show at the Allure Mag's interview? Where is the information of her being diagnosed with bipolar disorder? Where is the information of Britney's former bodyguard speaking out? Where is the information of her being under the influence? Where is the information of Britney spending more time partying (with Paris Hilton, nonetheless) than being with her kids or concentrating on her music career? What about the fact that she was seen without underwear, more than once? All of us KNOW why Britney mangled her VMA performance! She was seen partying in Las Vegas 2 days in a row than focusing on getting her performance right!

Source: www.entertainmentwise.com/news?id=37160

http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/2007/09/07/britney-spears-parties-the-night-before-vma-rehearsals/

http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah6749.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.2 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your constructive criticisms and actually providing some reliable sources for backing up your points. But for the first source you've provided, it says "A psychologist has claimed that Britney Spears' erratic behaviour could be a result of Bipolar disorder." - see the text bolded by me? That means the expert is not 100% certain whether she is suffering from Bipolar disorder. And hence it's not "factual" and we shouldn't add in the article.
 * With the latter 2 sources you have provided, we probably shouldn't add anything from those websites into the article according to WP:BLP, and especially WP:BLP. As well there are WP:BETTER, particularly WP:SS which suggests that we should not mention every single little detail that occured on her life.
 * With all those other points you've mentioned, they sound true. However, you need to find reliable sources to verify them, otherwise we can't insert them in the article anyway.
 * Last but not least, the article is neutral. Because we did not insert information such as "'...Baby One More Time' and '(You Drive Me) Crazy' and 'Oops!... I Did It Again' and 'Lucky' and 'Stronger' and 'Toxic' are the greatest pop songs ever! Everybody loves them!" - OK, maybe I've exagerrated a little there.
 * Nevertheless, thank you again for your contributions. Oidia (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be wrong to put up the opinion of a psychologist who was not treating her -- because he would not know a thing really, and it would be an horrific violation for someone who was treating her to talk about it. So... we probably cannot say "She's crazy".--Blue Tie 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)