Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 6

New album titles?

Out of curiosity, could these be considered as "real" titles? If they are, I'd like to incorporate them in the article (though they may be a bit bizarre).

1. Omg is Like Lindsay Lohan Like Okay Like 2. What if the Joke is on You 3. Down boy 4. Integrity 5. Dignity --69.67.198.62 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Would a registered user please revert this article to the state shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britney_Spears&oldid=136510114 ?

Some joker seems to have created a Wikipedia account simply to mess with this article. 84.56.184.229 16:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

house of blues shows

Please wait until the final show is completed to add this into her bio, otherwise one 20-minute show just doesn't cut it. I understand that it can all be tied up to her "return to music" but it isn't yet noteworthy enough Myrockstar 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The House of Blues show was completed at 10pm May 01 Pacific time. It is definitely noteworthy if you read the mainstream news. She performed under cover as the M&M's, that is extremely unusual for any high profile artist. I know you're goaltending this page & that's admirable, but I'm restoring the removed graphs. Robogun 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While I am usually inclusionist about what goes into this article I think that a mention of each specific concert in specific detail (length, setlisting, venue, and other details) is way too much. At the end of her "tour" this week, we could perhaps mention that that she did four concerts and list where. All of this extra detail is disproportionate to the importance of the event.--Agnaramasi 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Robogun, what I meant is that we should wait until the final show in Las Vegas or wherever it might be is completed to add the whole thing into the article. Apparently her first two shows did consist of a "14 minute" routine, but she could change it for the next shows, or even cancel them. As that paragraph is right now it has zero encyclopedic content and reads more like an entry in someone's journal. Myrockstar 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Sectioning

I think that the addition of a second 2007 section labelled "Return to music" is stylistically atrocious. These silly concerts, which don't seem to be particularly successful in any case, are not a return to music. Only a substantial tour or the release of new recorded material might qualify.. Please, someone, change this back to how it was.--Agnaramasi 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

She performed for the first time in nearly 3 YEARS/ That is a return to music. It shows she is doing what made her famous again and is now making headlines for performing not K-Fed or crotch-shots. Soapfan06

And where did you get the idea they are not successful? They were reportedly SOLD-OUT!

The other editors who have expressed their views on this matter are in agreement with me on this. These shows do not qualify as a "return" or "comeback" to music and are not especially notable. You have proven, by contrast, that you are intent on pursuing a narrow and POV agenda with this article, as shown by the ample warnings on your talk page. Please stop changing this the headings when no one else is in agreement with you, and instead start respecting WP:CON.--Agnaramasi 15:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am NOT the one who changed the section back to include the house-of-blues shows. Anyway, people who come to see Britney's article on wikipedia care about this information because it has been almost 3 years since she had a single performance! Just because you don't consider it worthy news does NOT mean it isn't! Soapfan06

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

Who are you to judge they don't qualify for a musicla comeback? Since her fans are the primary readers of this page they would certainly be entitled to call this a musical comeback. Do you have something against Spears and her return to music? Why can't info on her new album appear on this page like Jennifer Lopez has appear on hers? Are you aware of that? We shouldn't be emphasizing her 2007 as just a "personal struggles" year because since rehab--and before--Spears has had alot more go on in her life which includes her recording her new CD and putting on several shows for her fans.

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

Fine, but why is he info on Spears' new album not included in the article? Other artists have info on their upcoming albums on their main page but Spears is not. That is not right.

If you can find verifiable and notable sources with information about any upcoming albums, you are more than justified in adding it. Obviously, these criteria exclude mere speculation.--Agnaramasi 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If the mini-concerts in the House Of Blues weren't a "comeback" then what were they??? They're not a huge comeback, but for someone who's spent the past 2 years pregnant, this mini-tour is a huge step. She's looking great and I think it should be considered as a return to music, not necessairlly new music but, still, music. Also, I think it'd be very nice to put a picture of one of the performances. -- Dante

There are enough pictures, and the looking great is you POV. Maddyfan 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that her concerts doesn't represent that she has returned to music. However, her concerts are not "Personal Struggles" either. We should separate her "Return to music" from "Personal Struggles" but with a different title. Oidia 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, she is still having major problems. Until anything happens otherwise, it'll stay. She's still being blasted, and her behavior is still seen as creepy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.82.82.248 (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Can you point exactly what kind of problems she is still having? Britney WAS full of problems before but now at least her concert is a really good re-start for her. TV News and magazines alike are commenting on her "new slim down body" and her concert made headlines with all signs poining towards a positive future for her. Oidia 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The majority are posting the exact opposite. She looks a mess everyday. People still believe she's on drugs. Her family is speaking out against her. She's leaving bizarre public comments about her father and her manager. Her concerts are being blasted for lipsynching, which she always has done, and looking awful. She stays for less than 15 minutes, with people extremely angry. There's an MSNBC article that was beyond scathing of not just her, but her now limited fanbase.68.82.82.248 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true, she does have lots of problems. But having problems like the ones you've described does NOT indicate that Britney is not returning to music. Lots of singers/actors have their careers co-existing with their scandals/problems. It's rather a common sight for celebrities to be on drugs, and they often do behave "unusually" when haunted by the media. Yes, her fanbase is decreasing, meaning she still has fans around the globe, there are fans that were excited and happy after seeing Britney's 15min concert - a journalist from a news program interviewed fans at the end of the concert and many of them said they very enjoyed the show. So what I'm saying is that her personal struggles can last forever but she IS definitely making a come back to music. The article for her next album has official confirmation from famous producers that they ARE working on her new album. And the fact that her "return to music" should deserve a section on its own is because it's making a significant impact on the entertainment industry, Her endorsed products, fans, herself and anyone who has enough interest in Britney to look her up on wikipedia. Oidia 11:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Kentwood, Louisiana

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

according to the source, it was McComb, Mississippi not Pyongyang, North Korea!! Jodeh 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep it's true that she is from KENTWOOD, Louisiana.

Seriously, how do we correct this error? How can I edit this wiki whoops?! Though trivial, this inaccuracy is forcing me to question my faith in this previously veneered website.

Being from Kentwood and being born there are two diffrent things all together. Kentwood is a hick town that probably does not have a hospital.......McComb, Mississippi is likely the closest place with a hospital (with a maternity ward and all), and that would be why she was BORN there! Personally, though born in the same state, I was born about 50 miles away from where I am from originally (because of the hospital issues of course). Think before you assume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.176 (talk) 05:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

What is the point?

Of adding something with sources if it gets deleted anyway? How come so many artists have info on their upcoming albums on their main page but Spears does not? Biased?

I totally agree, there should deffinatly be a section on the main page about her working on her comeback album and I also think that the House of Blues Tour does warrent the heading "Return To Music" because what the hell else could it be. Yes it's not her official comeback, but it's still a return to music. When she makes her comeback the heading can be changed. Oh I also completely agree that it's biased many things get left out of Britney's page but not on other artists, I mean if Madonna was gone for 3 years then did a house of blues tour there would be no problem with calling that a return to music, but for Britney its a problem and Madonna along with numerous other artists all have a blurb on their main pages about the albums they are currently working on but Britney does not.(May 9th 2007)

Read topic above. 68.82.82.248 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did and guess what Larry Confirmed to People Magazine and E! News that her album will be out this year and tons of producers have stated that they are working on it. So it's true and should be on the page, there are plenty of references for it just go check out the page all about the new album and you will find many links to what has been said about it by the people working on it. I also still think the HOB tour is a return to music but not a comeback and deserves to be seperate from "Personal Struggles". The thing is too many people who don't like Britney have control over her page, I mean who ever said above that the new album is speculation is totally full of shit(pardon my language, they just don't want it on the page because they don't want to promote the album.(May 10th 2007)

She's still having major struggles. You just don't start making section after section. She's still really a mess. 68.82.82.248 07:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No she really isn't a mess anymore, you just don't like her. "Personal Struggles is not the appropriate title for the info on her new album and House Of Blues tour, 'Return To mUsic" is much more fitting.(may 13th 2007)

I don't even think you're aware of how to sign your name. Don't tell me what I like. The heading will just end up being removed. You don't own the page. Stop adding POV. Maddyfan 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not nice to new wiki users. Wouldn't it be nicer to teach them how to sign their name? Oidia 12:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because the person has an attitude, and then another user, perhaps the same one, started using language when they didn't get what they wanted. Maddyfan 12:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Public Image" - achieving NPOV

The "public image" section of this article was deleted some time ago because it wasn't in a neutral POV. OK, it's difficult to write in a NPOV about Britney's image. BUT, like most news and featured articles, if we provide both sides, or even ALL sides of opinion, then it should be considered as a neutral POV. Hence we should bring back the "Public Image" section. With comments from fans, critics, the media, and any other opinions towards her image. Then the section will be neutral.

OR

We could start a section on the article with the heading "Attitudes towards Britney Spears". In there we'll state the common attitudes given towards Britney from Fans, Critics, Media, Parent Groups, etc. Oidia 06:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's fine the way it is. What you're supporting would be a disaster. There is no way to do it with out it being POV. 68.82.82.248 07:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Britney Lip Synching (sp?)

I think info about her controversies about her rumored lipsynching sahould be put in.

What artist does not lip synch? But she does sing live, and is awesome at it.

What artist doesn't lip synch? I hope you are joking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenoX101 (talk • contribs) 13:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Another deletion, Wikipedia biased on Britney

Once again, someone who is not neutral on reporting news on Britney career-wise, deleted her return to music section. What a dumbbutt.

Britney Spears was awesome. She needs to be awesome again.

'Grammy Award Winning'

I removed 'grammy award winning' from the opening paragraph of the article. A discussion on Christina Aguilera's talk page came to the conclusion that Christina has 'only' won five Grammys, which isn't noteworthy enough to put in the opening paragraph. In order to keep the articles uniform, clearly Britney's one Grammy isn't noteworthy enough for the opening paragraph either. SerenityX 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of the article for Kylie Minogue also stated that Kylie is a "Grammy award winning" artist. After having a look at List of Kylie Minogue awards and accolades, she has won one Grammy award (Best Dance Recording in 2004). I'm putting the "Grammy award wining" back into the article, even winning just one Grammy is a significant achievement and it is very noteworthy. And with Christina, it's a very very very significant achievement for her. We can't really judge how many Grammys is considered a lot. Oidia 03:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion about this. In a two against one consensus, it was decided that it should be taken out of the first sentence, and I moved it to describe her song Toxic which was what won her the grammy. To SerenityX, what happens on Christina's page isn't of this page's concern or any other artists', just because others and myself have removed certain things around here doesn't mean we are going to go to Christina's page to remove them as well. The excuse that "Christina isn't noteworthy enough so why should Britney?" isn't good enough. The previous excuse that putting that on the opening sentence makes it seem POV was. Myrockstar 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More info

I haven't put anything of this into the main article yet because it's either speculation or probably not very relevant. Britney made a public thank you to her fans for writing encouraging messages in her official website.[1][2] She is also having a concert in Florida as part of her "comeback plan".[3] Last but not least, Famous magazine is stating that Britney is making a comeback to the music scene.[4] They could be biased too so I haven't yet put anything into the article. Oidia 03:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the latter two items are relevent (or at least as relevent as what is presently included). The website message, not so much.--Agnaramasi 14:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

some info i dug up of britney finding a new boyfriend [5] Oidia 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BRITNEY'S FULL NAME!

In the main article on Britney spears, you've got her name wrong. Its supposed to be BRITNEY JANE SPEARS!

Do you have a source for that? *Dan T.* 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has followed her (career) for years, I assure you her name is Britney Jean Spears.

Good thing you added the parenthetical (career)... otherwise people might think you were a stalker! :-) *Dan T.* 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I like Britney Jean. It's soo Michael Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.190.79.42 (talk) 03:12, June 26, 2007

You're thinking of "Billie Jean".... Bsroiaadn^Talk 08:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian rumors

There was a period when there were a lot of rumors swirling that Britney is a lesbian. These occurred during her ugly divorce fight and may not have been true, but if I'm correct some prominent people, including Jenna Jameson, stood up to vouch for them (she claimed that Britney had propositioned her for sex). Whether or not these rumors are true, does the fact that there is much speculation that Britney is gay warrant a mention in this article?

No per WP:V--Agnaramasi 20:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that we merely comment on the rumors themselves, which were prominent enough to force her to issue a denial. If we quote Federline's friends and Jenna Jameson as stating that Britney is gay, we could back these up with sources, and let the reader decide based on that info.

If the information comes from reliable, published sources, then perhaps (I have no knowledge of this case myself). If it's sourced from celeb gossip rags and suchlike, then probably not. Have a read of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources too. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Britney into girl-love? Oh please be true..... 86.17.211.191 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lately the tabloids have been shouting that she's bisexual and it's some huge scandel and blah blah blah. Bleh. I think it's her private life and if she doesn't care to share her relationship details with the public we shouldn't be posting speculations on a site like this as though it is credible information or warrants mention. Even if the rumors are true, does it matter? I doubt she'd be open about it and suddenly become some huge gay rights advocate. 199.126.166.13 03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Jenna Jameson, it was another woman, a porn star, but Britney confirmed in an interview she never even saw the woman, but the woman said she slept with Britney to gain publicity, this happened around 2002-2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.235.119 (talk) 04:40, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

English American?

Hi. Is seems this article is in the category: English Americans, yet the only mention of England here concerns her grandmother. She definately wasn't born in England. Should we remove her from this category? Regards to all 195.137.96.79 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the list of Irish-Americans contains people who are there on the basis of their surname or religion or hair/eye colour. Some are there because they have one or more Irish antecedants and fewer are there because they were actually born in Ireland. So I look forward to seeing your IP address appear on thousands of other pages complaining about miscategorisation.... -- 62.25.106.209 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Author?

The opening paragraph of the article states that Spears is known as an "author", yet I could find no reference in the article to any written material that she's produced (apart from the songs obviously, but that makes her a songwriter not an author).

Could somebody clarify?

86.145.18.83 14:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

All those books she wrote with her mother. Check out the products section.

More Successful

I think the person who made this page did a great job because I have learned things I've never knew before althought I think Britney deserves a lot more credit in the background info section.She plays instruments na is more than jsut a singer.This webpage that is about her should reconize her for that.

We need a source that can confirm that she does play an instrument Oidia 04:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

She's played the piano on TV several times before. In a special for the ITZ album before it came out, she was seen playing a few seconds on the piano in her bedroom. There's also been one other instance where she was shown playing, but I forget where.

Stop vandalizing!

Quit deleting other peoples posts! You may or may agree but that is the point! Soapfan06/June 27/9:10

Presbyterian

There should really be a category or triva (or weird section) which points out that "Britney Spears" is an anagram of "Presbyterian"

Drug Tests

The story now is that the drug tests Britney took before entering rehab were negative, which means she was clean when she shaved her head. I think that should be mentioned.

You mean rumor. Maddyfan 13:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same as her saying bashing a car with an unburela was all for a part in a movie? Amazing what drugs can do --MattyC3350 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Other achievements

It is worth mentioning that Britney Spears was named the most powerful celebrity by the Forbes Magazine in 2002.[6]

In 2007, Britney Spears was one of the top 20 richest female entertainers in the world (She was ranked 12th)[7]

No. Maddyfan 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why No? I thought these are quite good achievements. Any valid justification? Ghotika 20:45, 2 July 2007 (SG)

That was five years ago. There's new people listed every year. #12 is pretty insignificant for "female entertainers". It's unnecessary. Maddyfan 00:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought that it can be placed under the section 2001-2003: Career Achievement. Yesterday, I was browsing Nicole Kidman, I found this quote :"During this time, Kidman was also listed as the 45th Most Powerful Celebrity on the 2005 Forbes Celebrity 100 List. She made a reported US$14.5 million in 2004-2005" under the section "Critical success (1995-present)". Ghotika 16:36, 4 July 2007 (SG)

Anyone still objecting to this idea?

I completely agree, this should be added

Irrelevance on some article

I do think this quote "Earlier that year, Spears' four-year relationship with Justin Timberlake ended.[30] Speculation that Spears had been unfaithful began circulating due to Timberlake's 2002 song "Cry Me a River" and its subsequent music video.[31] The song's music video showed an actress playing what could be construed as a Britney look-alike with certain physical features resembling Spears. The video also featured an actual photo taken of Spears and Timberlake standing together. It can clearly be seen in the video when Timberlake kicks the cracked picture frame holding the picture towards the camera, because the director freeze framed the shot. Timberlake has denied that it was meant to portray Britney" is totally irrelevant in terms of Britney's achievement in 2002-2003. It doesn't suggest/portray any sort of accomplishments. Please do review. Thanks Ghotika 00:32, 21 July 2007 (SG)

I think that the quote stating that the video "featured an actual photo taken of Spears and Timberlake standing together. It can clearly be seen in the video when Timberlake kicks the cracked picture frame holding the picture towards the camera, because the director freeze framed the shot" should be removed... this is not a fact, purely speculation. The photo shows a blonde girl, it's never been documented that this photo is Britney. The language "actual photo" and "can clearly be seen" is misleading and false. The photo may be meant to represent Britney, but it is not actually her. August 14 2007 (SH)

Amazon as source

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

Nyla

Shouldn't her ex-restaurant Nyla be in this article?

No, it closed in 2003...about a year after opening. No point. She had very little to do with management and that is why she said it was a failure. Soapfan06 16:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, her hands-on involvement in running the restaurant would certainly have improved its chances for success. ;-) Ribonucleic 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote yes, it was still apart of her life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.235.119 (talk) 05:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bj.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Change of image

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

I'm inclined to think that 2006 - present ought to be classified as the "total collapse" image period, if recent events are any indication. Let's see what the next few weeks brings...--Wee Charlie 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Britney in "superficial friends"

I think there should be a comment on the page saying someting like

"Britney's reputation (or image) saw heavy.com's series "Superficail friends" create an episode based around her.

Photo at page header

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

Pictures need to be unbiased and portray a neutral view of Spears. No celeb has a photo of them on wikipedia that shows them in a "bad moment" and Britney won't either. Plus, you have to make sure the image is free and have a license to use it on here. Soapfan06 05:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We should change the image when her new material comes out/new tour.

Factual mistake

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

Category: Ivor Novello Award Winners

{{editprotected}} Ivor Novellos are awarded to the composers of songs not their singers. Someone might want to remove this category. 212.140.167.98 12:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tabloids and gossip columns as sources for "factual information"

Can we really say that these sources are crediable and can we really use those sources and keep this article "non POV". I'm all for adding to the article but I see no reason for the tid bits about O.K. magazine nor really do we need the bit about Kentwood, Lousianna not supporting her anymore. All of these articles are biased and none of it has anything to do with Britney's career nor personal life. Most of all none of it is noteworthy nor is it fact. (We really don't know if Britney was even going to pose for O.K. Magazine it hasn't ben confirmed by her or any of her people that she had a photo shoot scheduled with them nor are there any reports from her people saying she was going to do a tell all with the magazine. As a matter of fact Britney has said on several occassions that she severed all ties with the said magazine, also there is no way of knowing that everyone in Kentwood dislikes Spears). So the question begs are we here to write a opinon peice on the woman or are we here to deliver a factual excerpt about the artist? Cause I see atleast two paragraphs in the bottom section that aren't at all neutral to the artist. I ask that they be removed- Skin...

That was confirmed by OK! Magazine. She never said that and the pictures are out there. Her downfall is part of her page. Maddyfan 12:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename personal struggles and career activities.

it should be renames to something like 'Rehab and 5th Album' or 'Breakdown and 5th album'

I think 'Personal Struggles' then a total seperate section 'Return to music'. --Jak3m 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

New manager

Britney has hired a new manager to steer her career comeback to the right direction. [8] Oidia 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed not to be true by E! News. Maddyfan 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article need to be cleaned up

It should focus on her music career and achievements, deleting all unreliable sources and biased info.--Jak3m 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Like? Maddyfan 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

the suff in 'Personal Struggles' half of that stuff probably isnt true. That section should have more info about her return to music more than anything.--Jak3m 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The article's quality is diminishing

One of the things on the To Do List is to prepare the article for FA status. The current article is way too far from being able to reach FA. I think that we need to do some major overhaul to the article, particularly the Biography section to make it into better quality. I propose modifying the Biography section into several sub sections like this:

Music career

Childhood and discovery

This will be information of her musical career before Baby One More Time. Music career info ONLY, nothing about her personal life.

Early commercial success

Baby one more time album and oops i did it again album. And any other music career activites like tours and concerts. Once again, do not mention anything about her personal life.

Career development

Info on the Britney album, In the Zone album, Greatest Hits album. Music career information only

Future plans

Yes I know that there will be objections of this particular sub section. But if she does release a new album it will be written here.

I agree that this should be done.--Jak3m 16:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Britney Has Her Fifth Studio Album Coming Out On November 13th Apparently. She Has Already Shot The Video For Her First Single And Is Rumoured To Be Performing At The MTV VMA's On The 9th Of September. The Comeback Will Start Late 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazytowel (talk • contribs) 15:58, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life

This is where you'll put the information about where she's born, where she's raised, her relationship with Justin, her 55 hour marriage, Kevin Federline, the 2 childern, divorce, rehab, etc.

So in conclusion, this is what I really think would be benefit to this article, and potentially get it into GA status. The main thing is to separate the informations of her music career from the info of her personal life, because most people would recognize Britney as a singer. What do you think? Oidia 12:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I agree, This article should focus on her musical career. The article really need to be cleaned up.--Jak3m 16:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the page is about the person, not just music. Check anyone else's page. Maddyfan 12:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The key here is to section the article into her recording/singing career and her personal life. Mixing her music career in with her personal life makes the article look very messy. That's one of the reason this article is rated B. Looking at the article for Kylie Minogue, it's sectioned into her recording career, her film and TV career, and her image and celebrity status. Why do I want to model Britney's article after her article? Because that article is rated FA status. One of the to-do thing for this article is to prepare it for FA status. The current shape is still far from GA. I strongly suggest that we have different sections of this for her music career and her personal life. Oidia 23:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Is so much information about her personal life relevant?

Spelling mistake: "she pubicly left the religion" should be changed to read "publicly"

New Perfume called "Believe"

I think we should add Britney's new perfume to the article since it's her 5th perfume. Here's the link:

http://www.britneyspearsbelieve.com/

-Skin...

Cult phenomenon?

Should it be included that Britney is a cultural phenomenon and that no one else has achieved the success that Britney has achieved (at her age)? Mullet Pirate's Driver 01:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's going to be extremely hard trying to achieve NPOV when writing the cultural influences of Britney Oidia 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Phenomenon?! Britney is (was?) a pop star -- no more, no less. She sold a lot of records for about four years (1999 - 2003). She had good management and didn't get fleeced by the record companies as often happens to new artists (like many of the boy bands, for instance), so she made a pile of money from her time at the top. She's just one of many pop acts that have had a few good years, and then had their careers implode when tastes changed, their youthful good looks evaporated, and most of their fans moved on. Right now, the only way she could be defined as a 'cultural phenomenon' is the ongoing train wreck of her personal life.

Personally, I don't think anyone should try to put anything in its cultural perspective until a decent inverval has elapsed, and the performer can be seen in their proper context. Maybe in ten years, we will be able to look back, and start to get an idea of Britney's actual long term impact.--Wee Charlie 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, But she is one of the most successful artists in history, And she's sold a lot more albums than her peers, eg, Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera and so on. The world was in dire need for Britney Spears when she first came into the spotlight, the music scene before Britney was grungey and dark. Britney Spears opened the door to a whole new level of music, a whole new level of entertainer. --Jak3m 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, with reliable data/sources, it's reasonable to put "Britney Spears has sold more albums than Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera" then followed by a ref. Because that's factual information and would make nice addition to the article. However if you want to say she revolutionized the music scene, that's very not neutral and I think it should not be included into the article. UNLESS you can have a highly regarded figure or expert in the music industry that made such a comment, then you can probably say that. Something like this "Professor XXX at University of XXX stated that Britney Spears has revolutionized the music scene in the late 90s........"(ref) OR "XXX magazine has rated Britney Spears as XXX......"(ref) Oidia 23:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why we know for sure she revolutionised the music industry.

Yes we all know she's a very iconic figure in the music scene. Unfortunately, if we jumped to conclusion like that, it's considered Original Research. We are not permitted to submit Original Research in wikipedia. Oidia 00:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Britney has always been a cult phenomenon, she pretty much paved the way for the slew of pop princesses in the industry today and she's been cited as an influence by artists, like JoJo. Not many pop artists can boast having their names engraved on the annals of music histroy (all around the world, in every region) AND having a lasting impression on people's memories. We all know the success she has attained. Releasing hit songs one after another (not to mention hit albums), memorable performances and (to some degree) a tumlutous personal life.... There's no doubt she's phenomenal, not to mention iconic.

HERES THE DEAL

This is what needs to be done. the order should be.

MINI BIO,
CHILDHOOD,
PERSONAL LIFE GOES HERE INCLUDING 'PERSONAL STRUGGLES' 'MARRIGES' 'CHIDREN'

-MUSIC CAREER-
DISCOVERY,
EARLY COMMERCIAL SUCCESS,
MATURITY,
GREATEST HITS WITH ACHIEVEMENTS,
RETURN TO MUSIC.

-DISCOGRAPHY-
ALBUMS/TOURS/SINGLES

-FILMOGRAPHY / TV-
FILMS AND DVD GOES HERE INSTEAD OF ^THERE^

-PRODUCTS-
-FRAGRANCE-

the end.--Jak3m 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent structure Jakem! I'd like to see that implemented into the article. :) Oidia 00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, i hope so too.--Jak3m 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the article around

Just a little bit.
Making the article more efficient.
I moved 'divorces/children/rehab' into a section called personal life.
I made a new section named 2007: return to music.
I also separated Childhood and Discovery.
I hope this has make the article better.
Share your views below. --Jak3m 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Great job there. The to-do things list for this article says:

• To Prepare for FA STATUS, from Peer Review:
• It is mainly structural and syntactical issues like this that which separate it from FA status - there are plenty of facts but they are poorly presented and organised.

And separating the sections into those formats are the first step towards FA for this article. Well done. However there is still PLENTY to be done. Such as the Justin Timberlake relationship in career achievements will need to separated out and put under her personal life headling. As well, I suggest a section down the bottom of the article for her products and endorsements, and her fragrances and the deal with Pepsi should go under there too. Oidia 01:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh Jakem, when you moved the sections around, something went wrong with the references, can someone fix it please? Oidia 03:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I was just about to say. What happened to the references?Skinwalker03 03:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, I fixed it already Oidia 03:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the reference thing. On the whole it looks better now.--Jak3m 10:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Article looking good

OK, this article is getting into really good shape. Some major overhaul has been done to the article, but every effort is being made to improve it until it reaches FA status. I think the final things that need to be done are the phrasing and expression of sentences and paragraphs. This article is not far from GA. Oidia 03:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Preferably photos post 2004, we need more of her recent photos. If anyone has a free image of the recent Britney please upload it! Oidia 05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel the article should be shaped according to Gwen Stefani article. I feel Gwen Stefani is a perfect article to be followed. If this article is also written in the same way, FA won't be too far. Luxurious.gaurav 06:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Gwen Stefani's article is very good example that we could follow. In fact, Gwen's article and Kylie Minogue article has a section for "public image". We used to have a "public image" section for Britney Spears, but was removed due to neutrality issues. I have suggested that we could achieve NPOV for a "celebrity image" section on this article if we provide views from ALL ANGLES. But people disagreed with me and that section was gone forever. I am planning to start a "Celebrity status and image" section for Britney Spears soon. If Gwen Stefani and Kylie Minogue can have that section and be FA, so can this article. Oidia 06:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not add more images. Even with owned images, there is a limit. We don't need three billion of them. Maddyfan 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

britnies sex life

i kist the produser of the music vidio tocxic i was neced

Comments on the page

Do not inflate who she is. Leave the opening alone. This is the same mess with the person who tried to say that she was the best selling artist of the 21st century. Not true, and not relevant. Don't post what is going on with her in the Personal Life section. This is not only a music page. Her life has taken over her career and putting it below is just more of trying to cover up her behavior. She has not returned to music. Leave the page alone and add what you wish with sources, but enough trying to fill the article with jargon and moving everything around creating an eyesore. The page is fine the way it is and was agreed to with a consensus when everything from tabloid information to irrelevance stripped away. Lastly, writing that she resides in Los Angeles in the opening paragraph is also irrelevant. If you want to add material, add it to the format already allotted. Enough with the fandom. Maddyfan 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The to-do list next to the content table in this talk page CLEARLY STATES

• To Prepare for FA STATUS, from Peer Review:
• It is mainly structural and syntactical issues like this that which separate it from FA status - there are plenty of facts but they are poorly presented and organised.

UNDERSTOOD??? Oidia 05:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. The whole purpose of having us wikipedians editing this article is to get it into FA status. The old structure is likely to get this article anywhere near FA. I'll say this again, by modelling this article after other celebrity FAs such as Kylie Minogue and Gwen Stefani is the easiest way to get there. Oidia 05:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Maddyfan, like Oidia just stated, were modelling this article on other singers which are much better than the previous Britney article, I'd respect it if you'd leave the article alone, do you not consider how much work some users like myself and Oidia have put in to reworking this article? It is now a much better article after its edit. --Jak3m 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Book

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

Britney Spears was born in McComb

and she was RAISED in Kentwood.--Jak3m 12:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she was born in McComb, check the links [9] [10] Oidia (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT use the 4 seasons for dates

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

i agree --Jak3m 12:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Help

I added the Allure magazine cover to the 'Return to music' section, but i don't know about copyright and stuff, can someone help me. I think its an image which goes well with 'Return to music' as its her first photoshoot in years and so on. --Jak3m 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone can find a copy of the 'before' picture, it could go in the Adobe Photoshop article.--Wee Charlie 16:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the photoshoot was in april, when she looked like that.--Jak3m 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

BRITNEY ISNT DEAD! STOP VANDALS

we need an administrator to block these vandals saying shes died.--Jak3m 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Shannon Funk

What an incredible name... Is there any source ? Hektor 19:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

huh? Oidia (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Shannon Funk Is A Relative Of Britney And Was Her Nanny/PA For A While. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazytowel (talk • contribs) 16:00, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Continued Perfume success

According to Reuters Britney Spears Elizabeth Arden Fragrances are still selling extremely well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN1638990120070817

U.S. cosmetics company Elizabeth Arden Inc. (RDEN.O: Quote, Profile, Research) reported better-than-expected profit for its fiscal fourth quarter on Thursday, helped by sales in international markets and demand for its fragrances.

Quarterly sales at Arden, known for its namesake and Britney Spears perfumes, rose 28 percent to $242.7 million, driven by new fragrance brands and higher sales in global markets.

In addition to strong demand for Britney Spears fragrances, the company cited success with a perfume named for novelist Danielle Steel, saying it was a leading brand for Mother's Day at retailers J.C. Penney Co.

Skinwalker03 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Great find and great info! Let's put it into the Britney Spears products article. Oidia (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I found some more information as well

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=228423476&p=zz84z4y8z

Britney tops celeb perfume sales 14/08/2007 - 13:27:01 Britney Spears (pictured) is top of the celebrity perfume chart but faces tough competition from rival stars, a retailer said today.

Britney Spears is top of the celebrity perfume chart but faces tough competition from rival stars, a retailer said today.

The singer’s Curious fragrance is out-selling perfumes by Kylie, Sarah Jessica Parker and Victoria Beckham, according to Superdrug.

But it could be knocked off the top spot by Coleen McLoughlin’s signature perfume which goes on nationwide release tomorrow.Skinwalker03 17:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Years Active?

I think we should chance the years active. I mean Britney was on tv in the early ninetees for mikey mouse. Doesn't that count as being active?

I would think so. She was in Mickey Mouse club starting in 1993 [11] per IMDB.--Sandahl 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No manager or publicist

I think it should be added to the "personal struggles" section that Spears has been largely - or at least intermittently - without a publicist or manager for some time. This fact puts her bizarre public behaviour better in context.--Agnaramasi 20:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Britney having sex with a college student?

After all her many antics, what is it about Britney Spears that's so hot? It's her getting involved in a wild and topless romp with a hot young boy toy in a spa at a Los Angeles hotel.

The train wreck, as if she could never have enough of the many publication she's received lately, sent a shock to public worldwide with the appearance of her topless photos while making out with college student Matt Encinas in naked romp in a spa at Los Angeles' Standard Hotel.

While you can enjoy the shocking pictures here, the 25-years-old Matt is keen to tell you on what happened between them during the racy game of topless truth or dare.

Matt was quoted by Us Weekly as saying he was invited by Spears to a late-night private pool party at the Standard Hotel in Los Angeles upon his appearance as one of the extras in her latest music video for her comeback single "Get Back". The other extras also got invited as well.

There "Britney was drinking Mojitos and Jack Daniels. She was the first one to undress, and then everyone else followed. I turned around and saw that she was topless and she had fake tattoos of flowers on her nipples from the shoot. Her assistant said Britney wanted to make out with me," so said Matt.

Then he went on saying, "Britney straddled me and put her legs around me. I was feeling her breasts and kissing her on the neck. Her body was very nice. It was sexual and sensual kissing. She is a phenomenal kisser. I was dared to get naked and get out of the pool and walk as though I was on a catwalk in a fashion show. Britney was laughing really hard."

A source in the know also added, "At one point Britney was simulating sex with him, putting on a really hot show."

That's not all, Matt claimed Spears invited him back to her hotel suite and tried to seduce him. "I went in and found Britney lying on the bed with her knees up and just a pair of pink panties on. She was looking like she was ready - and I wanted to finalize it," the young guy revealed. Matt, however, didn't stay there for the night as Spears had requested him to because his friend collapsed and the singer's bodyguard told him to take him home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Where dead angels lie (talk • contribs) 11:26:16, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Riiight.... If you want it added, get a source.--Jak3m 13:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 interview with OK!

I wonder why the incidents relative to her July 2007 interview with OK! (erratic behaviour, ruining designer clothes, leading OK! to break their usual policy of publishing only positive celebrity profiles) can be mentioned in the article OK! but not in this article. OK! Magazine Prints Potentially Damaging Interview with Britney SpearsHektor 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem with it is that we don't known if it's factual information. O.K. Magazine is a tabloid and I just don't think that tabloid information is factual enough to put on this page. Tabloids are very rarely 100% accurate that's why I see no point in commenting on it. Their has been no official word about the interview or about the photoshoot from Britney's people. Some people are even saying that the scheduled shoot never even happended and wasn't supposed to and that O.K. is just lying to get sales up since their behind all the other magazines. Until Britney's people or some reliable source that is close to her comments that it happened I see no point in adding it. Bottom line I just don't believe it's 100% factual information and there has been no press release or anything from Britney or her people.Skinwalker03 17:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK! Magazine is not a tabloid and Spears' contacted them herself and did the magazine firsthand. It is noteworthy and has been added back. This is not second-hand information. This was a scheduled interview by her herself. Maddyfan 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the long-run, the OK interview simply will not be notable and will certainly be removed. It really is a non-story. Also, OK magazine certainly is a tabloid. What other kind of publication would you call it?--Agnaramasi 01:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely staying. IT WAS AN OFFICIAL INTERVIEW. What happened adds to her personal life and behavior. OK is like every other magazine including People. They do official interviews. Maddyfan 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is nothing stating that it was an official interveiw or that Spears was going to do an interveiw with the tabloid. We don't know if the report is real and we also have nothing from Spears' team to say that their was a scheduled interveiw. If perhaps we had a comment from Spears' team saying that she did do the photoshoot then it would be different. But as it currently stands it's just a tabloid magazine giving a scandelous story that no one is 100% sure is true. Thus why we shouldn't add it to the article. It's not 100% accurate and it's not beyond a shadow of a doubt true. There is nothing from Spear's team saying that it was an offical interveiw. People Magazine is not the same as OK! magazine. OK is a tabloid magazine. People isn't.Skinwalker03 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As has already been stated OK! Magazine is a tabloid, and even if the scheduled interveiw was true it doesn't add anything to the article. Like said above it's a non story that gives nothing note worthy to the article and that's even if it's a real story (their are still no sources from Spears' team that even say Spears was supposed to do a "tell all" with the tabloid). Ultimately their no way to verify it's truthfulness (authenticity anyone?) and it adds nothing to the article. So I say no to adding it.Skinwalker03 01:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Just to make clear as well - it is not appropriate to use a different source (in this case, TMZ) to discuss an article in a magazine. What TMZ says OK says is immaterial. The only relevant information would have to come directly from OK. Incidentally, TMZ is even more of a gossip site than OK. Having said all that, I agree with Agnaramasi that this is a non-notable article. Risker 03:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree and I will be adding it back in permanently. Maddyfan 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't just keep reverting the article to get your way. You need to respect the community's consensus, which is that the OK interview is not notable and its account of events is not reliable. Also, if you revert the article once more, I believe you will be in violation of WP:3RR.--Agnaramasi 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I too ask that you respect the community vote and consensus. Perhaps if you gave a link stating Spears' team confirmed O.K. Magazine's interveiw it could be different but at this time the interview is not notable or 100% factual. This is not a gossip magazine. This is a encyclopedia excirpt about the person Britney Spears.Skinwalker03 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)