Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Quick vote - infobox image

Please fix the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.221.45 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what your opinions on which image should go into the infobox? This one: Image:Baby One More Time (1).jpg - an older image, but more clearly shows her face or this one: Image:Britney Spears.jpg - a newer image (still, many years old), doesn't clearly show her face and is kind of blurry.

What do you think? Also, it'd be really nice if anybody owns the copyright to any Spears photos could find it in their heart to release them under a free license :) Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal ate something

I saw someone put back a whole bunch of stuff that got lost in a vandal attack... but its still garbled and generally icky. I wont touch it for fear of making it worse. Someone take a look at the bottom of the article. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done I fixed it :) The error occured during the two vandal edits by User Jeffreyc48 at 08:23, 11 March. And when User HBow3 reverted those 2 vandal edits, he somehow forgot to close the last citation template in "Music videos" and so the entire "Number one singles" table became part of that citation. Oidia (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Filmography

I deffintley think her Filmography needs to be split into two sections one as a Main Filmography (acting, not just a simple appearance that lasted all of nothing more than 5 minutes) such as Mickey Mouse Club, Crossroads, Robbie the Rein Deer, Will & Grace, & How I Met Your Mother. And then a second for Guest Appearances/Short Roles such as Sabrina, Goldmember, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poisonparadise98 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The link to Longshot is incorrect. The film Spears appears in is not about the Marvel character; rather, it is a teen film directed by Lionel C. Martin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longshot_%28film%29). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.243.137 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrected.
Kww (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Madame Tussauds

Would it be interesting or beneficial in anyway to put a picture of Spears's wax figure at Madame Tussauds anywhere in the article? There are many images that are free. If so, where would it go?

I was thinking of maybe making a "Spears in Popular Culture" or "References in Popular Culture" section or something but then I thought that it would be way too hard to write it and complete it due to her huge exposure.. thoughts? Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this is late, but I think thats a great idea Oprah. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've done it :) Feel free to add and/or make changes etc. Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 04:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)lol

Discography

I attempted to put her discography back to where it was before someone delted everything except the Studio albums section, can someone go back and please fix it back to where it was and add the Compilation albums section as well Poisonparadise98 (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave Her Alone

I was wondering if it might be appropriate to add a section to mention that there has been a sort of movement to leave her alone? I'm refering to Chris Croker, South Park, etc...

I think that it's fairly relevant, but I wouldn't really know where to start in creating it.

Also, the second image is better, in my opinion. TheGreatHerald (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please write a bit about Chris Crocker in "Cultural references". 76.124.165.253 (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mention all notable singles

The current "rule" in the article to include only one single per album does not make sense. Many of her songs that aren't lead singles enjoyed as much success as the lead singles - this further presents a dilemma of what exactly we should choose to mention. Songs are the pillar of a singer's career - we shouldn't bar notable singles from being mentioned while having 2 medium-length quotes of reviews about her album, and 2 more about "Gimme More". We also have two immensely long quotes about In The Zone - these are unnecessary and should definitely go to the album page while the other notable singles should at least be mentioned. Moreover, for a superstar like Spears, the article is not that long at all. Madonna has 98 KB, Michael Jackson 104. While it is best to keep it short, adding a few sentences about notable singles wouldn't hurt. Herunar (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You raised some good points. It's a fairly good idea to include more singles apart from the lead ones. As you've mentioned, the real difficulty is determining which singles are notable enough for this article. And how much mention should we give for those single, one sentence? Two sentences? Three sentences? On the other hand, I feel the current length for the album reviews are just right. But if we are to mention more singles, then yes, the album reviews can be slightly shortened. Oidia (talk • contribs) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No panties

Why is there nothing at all about her intentional lack of panties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not of any note. Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 04:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it not of any note? It was front page news on several magazines!205.246.153.217 (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it now? The thing of it is... the whole, "No Panty" thing was a blip. It was important for about a two week period, and now what? Thats why its not in the article. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of this stuff in the article was only important for two weeks, yet it's included because without it, there'd be no article! The point is that at one point in time, the no panty thing was very notable, and so it should be included. A good analogy is the thing about her losing her kids being in the article; that was important for maybe two weeks but now no one cares about it anymore.205.246.153.217 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary... she still does not have entire custody of her children. But on a larger note... are you really comparing children, human beings, to panties? There are many things not in the article despite discussion. Check the archive for various discussions such as Adnan, the umbrella, the shaved head, her panties (or lack thereof, yes, that was discussed), and that svengali of hers that I cant remember the name of off the top of my head. We work by concensus, and the panty thing was already discussed. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 09:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life 2007 - 2008

At the end of this section is a sentence claiming that Britney has been doing charity work for animal rights campaigns. The reference attached to this (160) says nothing about this. Should this item be deleted?--Wee Charlie (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Make the article shorter.... TOO BIG!!

Someone that has the time and want's to. Please cut the Britney page to a smaller size. As it is very big, some sentences not make proper sense and unnecessary pieces of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtyharry1994 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the length of the article is just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.226.202 (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Front Pic's Weird

They should put on a new pic. Her hair looks spiky in the one they have right now on the front page, dunnit?

its true it does i totally know that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.242.219 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PAGE DELETED

Please fix this up! Some lowlife has deleted the whole article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.71.214 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Associated Acts

I don't really think they fit in. Britney never released anything with the girl group Innosense (sure she may have been part of it at the get-go, but she left the group before they released anything). She is Jamie Lynn's sister, that doesn't make them musically associated and the same goes with Kevin Federline (she is simply his ex-wife). It just doesn't fit and should be deleted in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.7.48 (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You just gave several reasons for those things being included in an Associated Acts section. Phoenix1304 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears in Latin American's pop culture

Nobody has mentioned how Britney inspired pop culture in Latin America. For example there's a Mexican singer, called Martin Ricca who has a song named "Enamorado de Britney Spears" which means Fell In love of Britney Spears http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcYLRcg4Pig and there's else a song made by various artists in 2007 called "Britney tu no estás sola" (Britney you're not alone) supporting her. Is it important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaro3043 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New picture and new link

Can someone change the picture on the top of the main page of Britney (maybe to something from her "In The Zone" photoshoot)? The picture being used isn't flattering at all, and theres a lot of pictures of her that are better than that one...

Can someone also put this website at the bottom under useful links? The address is http://unreleasedbritneyspears.4mg.com ...its information about her unreleased songs, albums, etc...it can be interesting to fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S11125 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

New 2008 Album In The Works

Hi,

I know its early stages and all but I really think we should think about making a new section for Britneys Upcoming Album. The rumours about it are going stronger.

The Sun saying it will be released around Christmas:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article1142622.ece

Tmz said that she was in the recording studio with Damon Elliot, the producer:

http://www.tmz.com/2008/04/23/britney-s-psychic-friend-connection/

Her multiple trips to the recording studio:

http://britneybreakstheice.blogspot.com/search/label/Recording%20Studio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Monument to Pro-Life

121.97.133.121 (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Should something be mentioned about the sculpture in which she's depicted giving birth? [1] --Masamage ♫ 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

She didnt make it, and it received very little press coverage. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 09:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Britney and Mel Gibson

britney spears and Mel Gibson are headed to Costa Rica where they will vacation with the singer's father and Gibson's wife, a source tells PEOPLE.

"They're just going away for a few days to relax," says a source.

The group plan to stay at Gibson's Costa Rican home. They will be back early next week.

The unlikely pair were first spotted together back in mid-March when they dined at Russian restaurant Romanov in Studio City. However, it wasn't their first meeting. Gibson and Spears and their families met a number of times after the pop star was hospitalized in February, a different source told PEOPLE at the time.

"Mel and his wife Robin clearly saw a woman in crisis and wanted to extend themselves in any way possible," the source said.

Gibson and Spears used to be neighbors when the singer previously lived in Malibu. "There are no expectations, there is no agenda," the source added. "It's simply an act of human kindness – one neighbor reaching out to the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.133.121 (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, we'll keep our eyes open and ears listening if anything else notable happens with this new relationship... thanks! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article looks like it was written by a delusional fan, it's full of references to her being the greatest ever etc. It just needs a little cleanup, I already edited the lead section a bit. There should also be more reporting of critical reception of her work.AleXd (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

4th best-selling female in the U.S.?

RIAA did not proclaim her as the 4th best-selling female but according to the site, she's the "8th" best-selling female behind Barbra, Madonna, Mariah, Whitney, Celine, Shania, and Reba, in particular order. Kindly correct the intro. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Yea and she also hasn't sold anywhere near that many albums. She's sold 83 ot 85 million if you count Blackout which has only sold 2 million. And she isn't worth anywhere near that amount of money either. What idiot got away with publishing this crap!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.44.15 (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What is going on?

I have been coming to Britney's Wikipedia page regularly - mainly to create and update a section on the chart performance of Blackout - and just noticed how much of the introduction has been changed! Its ridiculous? She has made $2.7 billion dollars? What? Hardly anyone in the world, let alone any singer has made that much money! Also, the number of records and albums she has sold has been changed and the grammar and sentence structure is disjointed and confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Rush (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea also that info about the album sales is wrong. She's sold 83 million albums, not including singles. Sort it out please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.32.174 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

New Main Picture

Can someone change the picture of Britney on her main page...this is a good picture of her to use, or this, they both look a lot better than the one being used now. A picture from her tour in 2004, like this or this would be good too...even this picture from an awards show would be good. Someone please change the picture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by S11125 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are those pictures released with a free license? Dont know? Then we cant use it. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes the pictures are free to use. S11125 (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Where on the websites does it say that they are releasable under a free license? I couldnt find one. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are available for download...fans use them usually to make blends so I don't see why one of them couldn't be used on Wikipedia. Nothing will happen if you use one of them on here. On BritneyRes.com it even gives instructions of how to save them, so I theres no reason they can't be used. How do you even know the picture being used now was under a free license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S11125 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see here as to what a free license is and what it entails. This is a commercially vast website, and those pictures for download are for private use. There is a ginormous difference. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If I get permission from the site owner of one of the fansites with her pictures on it, would I be able to change the main picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S11125 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, because most fansites steal their pictures. You need to find the actual copyright owner, and have him release the image under GFDL. Not easy to find, and not easy to convince.Kww (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any other free-licensed pictures of Britney besides the one being used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S11125 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an uphill battle... if we had one, dont you think we would have replaced it with a newer picture by now? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK...but someone has to know of another free-licensed picture of her besides that ONE picture... —Preceding unsigned comment added by S11125 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither is Britney the 6th biggest female singer in the U.S.

Britney is the "8TH" biggest selling female, just an FYI, per RIAA and neither does she have more number 1 singles in any other country than Madonna, who happens to have the most #1 singles worldwide. Who wrote this intro??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and change it. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I highly agree with the comment above. Where are the links or URL that would prove she's the sixth best selling female in the US, which contradicts the one on the RIAA article stating she's the eight best selling. And where oh where is the link that justifies she has more number one songs than Madonna in any other country? Diphosphate8 (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Spears is the 6th biggest selling female artist in US history, according to the RIAA. Number one songs do not have any sway in this discussion, sir. Dmurawski (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah? You have a proof or reliable source to back up your statement that Britney is the "sixth" best-selling female in the U.S.? I checked the RIAA site a hundred times now and I've seen 7 female artists before her name on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

MySpace

I was about to add her official MySpace page to the list of External Links when I saw the hidden comment about not adding any links until discussed or whatever. I just thought, considering most musicians have a MySpace page, it would be useful to add it here too?londonsista | ^Prod 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, myspace pages are generally discouraged against, even if they are "official". See external links. The fact that they are present in other articles is really just setting a bad example. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Future projects

I think instead of naming the new section "New album", it should be named "Future projects" 213.42.23.71 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But since the only project being discussed is an album, it doesn't really change much. Phoenix1304 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Britney In General

I think there are to many details that are not necessary, for example naming every single realased...that wçmust be in the album article). Another thing is the images, there are a lot of photos of Britney more recent and showing her as an pop icon. I Don't think is necessary to call Britney "a songwriter", beyond she has co-writen many songs on her albums, it would be good just make mention of this in another part. Some information are changing constantly, please just make an objective article. And because I am a really fan of Britney I think she has enough power on herself as an icon and a outstanding figure, so don't put things and dobtful information just to raise her name, she is the best artist ever. She still on our minds...I think more than Madonna...and her ridiculous songs with Timbaland and a guy that could be her son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.195.139 (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears Movie 2009

She will be in a 2009 movie called With Love..... also the movie is starring dane cook, jim carey, jessica alba... and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britney887 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

She will star in upcoming film The Knoxville Carjacking Party and the film as a lot of sex sence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.163.87 (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect wording

"The Recording Industry Association of America ranks her as the eighth best-selling female artist in the American music history, having sold over 37 million albums in the U.S.[3]"

No, it hasnt ranked her at all as the eight best selling female artist, only the eight best selling female "album" artist. The sentance is very misleading. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ivor Novello Award

Britney Spears has not won an Ivor Novello award. They are awarded to composers not singers. Will someone remove the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.109.86 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Look in 2005 MrMarmite (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That source actually doesn't show that Britney Spears won the award. In fact, it says that the song won, which means the songwriters won the award, not Britney Spears. Since she doesn't write her own songs, and did not write this song, she didn't win the award since it was given to the writers of the song Toxic, not the performer. It should be taken off.NMBJ69 (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Most singles of any artist???

The introduction to this article states that Britney Spears has "8 number one singles in Ireland, the most by any artist in any country." What??? If I'm not mistaken, don't The Beatles hold the title for the most number one singles by any artist in any country? And they have 20 or 21, right? That by far surpasses Britney Spears... WikiFiend90 —Preceding comment was added at 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles have 20 #1 singles in USA. 85.94.105.173 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember....

I remember reading somewhere, that in an upcoming Pussy Cat Dolls music video Britney Spears makes a cameo performance. She is only suppose to have a 20 second part, her driving past the PCD car while they were in traffic. The PCD girls smile and wave. I can't seem to find this infomation anywhere, if anyone is bothered to look for it and found it, please put it in Britney Spears Wiki. Cheers! Dirtyharry1994 (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Look here MrMarmite (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Its here. But adding this on the page is funcrafty. --Efe (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Albums Sales

The albums sales are changing continually, please, chek it and put a good and satble ifnormation. (Everybody knows that ...Baby One More Time, has 35.000.000 of copies sold in the whole world not 22.000.000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.185.71 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism/controversy"

I created a section called "Criticism and controversy" and added a "stub" tag because I could only type about 2 paragraphs of information, but it was deleted about two minutes later.

Britney is a very controversial person, where is the section?

Tezkag72 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't find this at all. Sounds like you created a new page, but even then, I don't see it in your deleted contributions. And I don't see any edits to this article from you since 20th May. Can you provide a WP:DIFF for this? It should show in your editing history. --Rodhull andemu 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pap Shots Sans Underwear??

Why isn't anything mentioned about the fact that Britney was photographed NUMEROUS times without underwear? This is certainly a relevant and notable part of her complete and utter meltdown during 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.13.214 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the archive... we've already discussed it. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Queerbubbles, but flaps that famous deserves a second mentioning, k? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.204.193 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, and I dont live under a rock, she hasnt had any flaps in at least a year and some. No one is talking about it. Why should we? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking through The New York Times media archive on Britney Spears.1 And from the 143 articles, there actually is one of them with a line that mentions the (lack of) underwear.2 The context reveals it to be "sensationalism" though, and that's the only reason it's being reported about. Not because it's significant, let alone encyclopedic material. Species8473 (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Filmography Too Long

I think the filmography should be shortened. I think all cameos/guest appearances should be removed unless she played a part of an actual charater such as Will & Grace and How I Met Your Mother or 1 cameo a year as she has made several such as 2-3 a year into a films that mean little importance. A filmography shouldn't include Saturday Night Live or All That appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poisonparadise98 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

References Scrollbar

A reference scrollbar has been put in the article twice or more 1 2. Wikipedia policy on this states they: "should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring" 3. Even though the list is big, there are better arguments for not using one as acknowledged into wikipedia policy. Species8473 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ivor Novello Awards

She did not win the Ivor Novello Awards. The songwriters of the 'Toxic' song did! Please, be fair and take it off —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becool666 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I believe you are correct. And will remove Britney Spears from Category:Ivor Novello Award winners. Even though Britney Spears is also a songwriter, I have found nothing that suggests she ever won this award. Not with google, and no mention of it at list of Britney Spears's awards. Thanks for reporting it! =Species8473= ^(talk) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Page

ok, why is the WHOLE page composed of: "BRITNEY SPEARS SUCKS!!!"? that needs to be fixed. FAST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.72.176 (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

it's still that way, i can't revert it as i am a noob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.92.145 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

fixed it

I fixed the page that said "BRITNEY SPEARS SUCKS!!!!!" i didnt fix it, just put all the old info back =) comment added by x0p0pprinc3ss ehh im not good with codes <=( —Preceding unsigned comment added by X0p0pprinc3ss (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Who removed Radar??

I remember there used to be an article on her next single "Radar"! Why was it removed? I know it will be released as I read a review about it and it said it would be released this July.--Seán Travers (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

Maybe you should look here.
Kww (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the return to music section present it says "She first became a slut when she had sex with 30 people at one time. Page is locked so i can't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears was married to Richard Bacon in 2002

In 2002 Richard Bacon, a UK broadcaster, was interviewing her for her for the Big Breakfast UK TV show. During the interview he proposed to her and she accepted. Bacon had a vicar and a legally binding marriage certificate brought in and they both signed it. The building they were in was legally qualified for hosting marriages. After the interview her bouncer chased after Bacon and ripped up the certificate, however Bacon has stated "You can't just get rid of it by tearing it up, which means I actually could still be legally married to Britney Spears, which means her marriage to Kevin doesn't exist and that Britney Spears a bigamist."

This story is documented on many news websites.

Bacon has told this story many times and has again reiterated it twice this week (11th July 2008) on BBC national breakfast radio in the UK.

I feel this should be include in her personal life section.

Daily Mail MSNBC Softpedia BBC Guardian MTV

BaconIsPartridge (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats pretty interesting. Lets let the others check it out too, and see what we come up with. Thanks! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I love how we don't talk about Spears' life going to **** since '05 or so

In the intro we should talk about how she's not really a musician and how she's more popular for her life has been more of a trainwreck in recent years. This is an objective, unarguable fact. See look up any news station that's covered this, or magazine (Rolling Stone covered it) and they talk about how she's an absolute wreck. This is even referenced many times on TV shows. You see, you guys just touch up on her marriage with K-Fed in her intro, that does not cover it at all. Fix this or I will. YAYYOYAY (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

#1, you'll find that alot of wiki editors dont like or respond to threats. #2, we dont mention it in the lead becuase thats not that the lead is for. #3, we mention her troubles further down in the article. Thanks. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. All of her troubles have been the most notable thing to happen in her life lately, so it should be included. two, why aren't their any pictures? oh and also, her infamous MTV VMA 2007 perfomance isn't even mentioned in the article. This needs to be seriously updated. YAYYOYAY (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Her vma performance is mentioned. There arent as many pictures because the ones out there on the internets arent free use. The article is continuously updated. Please stop drive by complaining. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

YAYYOYAY, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which dictates the following rules:

Criticism and praise

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Basic human dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Wikipedia does not exist to blatantly mock Britney Spears or any other individual. Spears's personal life is not the thing she is best known for and the article cannot have undue weight in regards to her mishaps. The article must have a balanced coverage of her entire life in order to avoid WP:RECENTISM. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Britney Spears' personal life and especially the fascination that surrounds it may not be covered sufficiently in this article, but I haven't read it thoroughly in a while, so I'm not sure. A few months back, The Atlantic wrote an excellent article on the fascination surrounding her personal life, which they describe as "Hollywood’s most addictive entertainment product". I would encourage editors to incorporate more from this excellent news piece. Mangostar (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

PEOPLE PLEASE COME ON WITH THE IMAGE

How long ago was that taken? Thats right five years ago. There are SO MANY pictures out there that we could use that are current of her. Please someone find one and change that old old pic of her. It really needs to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moairgaurd2 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Like we state every few days... if the picture has a copyright, we can't use it here. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What if we use a pic from her VMA Perfomance 2007? That seems like public domain to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.25.54.31 (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only usable if the photographer released the image ... the event it was taken at doesn't matter at all.
Kww (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken Reference links

These links seem to be broken:

5 http://blog.sonymusic.com/sonybmg/archives/007415.html

75 http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=The+Billboard+Hot+100 (Ok, this was only extremely slow. Now it seems to work)

85 Whats with this?

105 http://tv.yahoo.com/show/38167/news/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20080325:tv_britney_spears__ER:47044

142 http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2007/02/exclusively_on_extra_britney_s.html

145 http://www.thekansan.com/stories/022307/play_022307035.shtml

179 http://www.latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/06/lynne-spears-wi.html

Bro4 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Genres

Seriously,stop changing them. Pop is her main genre,but Gimmie More is dance-pop and electropop. Therefore,it is correct to have the genres as pop,electronica,and dance. Big T.V. Fan (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not correct. She is not an electronica artist. Full stop. JBsupreme (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

She is still dance though. Big T.V. Fan (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As per your own words you stated "dance-pop" which is a sub-genre of pop. Stop changing the genre. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dance-pop isn't a subgenre of pop,it's a combo of pop & dance. Big T.V. Fan (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit-warring must stop. Whilst I have no particular opinion on the matter, this whole situation tonight is pretty WP:LAME. I have blocked one user for violating the Three-revert rule. Several other users were getting pretty close too, so I have protected the page for 24 hours (note, as the box states: "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version"). Please use to time to discuss this issue in a calm, civilized manner. Sort it out guys, huh? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is ridiculous. per Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre: Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop). There should be non sub-genres of pop in the info box whatsoever - its all "Pop". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going by professional classification, such as her listing at Allmusic Spears would be listed as a Rock/Pop artist. Hence her genre for this article would be listed Rock, pop. Dance music and Dance-pop are not recognized genres, they are sub-genres or "styles" within a larger genre. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not necessaily consensus that is needed for this edit war... there is, and has been consensus for a while now. Its BTV and MBF that are the ones who have drive by edited the genre category endlessly without first gaining conensus, looking for consensus, or listening to consensus. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I put my support behind listing only Pop. A rock genre if someone insists, but all these subdivisions of pop are just repetitive detailing. The genre field is supposed to be broad and sweeping, not an exhaustive list of every category that any individual song might fall in.
Kww (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse listing the genre solely and simply as Pop. Apply the K.I.S.S. methodology here. RFerreira (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection?

This article has been hit in the past 48-72 hours by IPs doing bad things... d'ya thing its time for some protection? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the controversial nature of anything related to Spears, I believe this article qualifies for indefinite semi-protection according to the qualifications dictated by WP:SEMI. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It was actually previously semi-protected. When the 24h (full) protection I placed on the article a few days ago due to edit-warring expired, the article reverted to being totally unprotected. Looks like nothing has changed in terms of IP/new user vandalism. Restored semi. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

I've noticed the NPOV tag at the top of the page for a while now, and was wondering if there has been a discussion re: the POV, or if it was just placed there to prompt us to talk about it, and no one has. Just wondering if we should remove it... Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it can be removed. I don't see anything in the article that breaks NPOV. This article could use some heavy clean up though. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree the tag can be removed unless someone can point out specific examples in the article that violate NPOV. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 VMA's

It is stated in the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards page that she will be performing. I would like to know if this is true and a good reliable source. Tcatron565 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake, Keri Hilson, Timberlake?

It has been confirmed that Justin, Keri and Timberlake will be working with Britney on her new album and that Britney's 1st single will be the duet with Justin that she'll be doing. It was confirmed by OK! Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOWitude (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

←

→

Reminder on wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons

Criticism and praise

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Basic human dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder that this is not a forum per WP:FORUM

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference Desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Overly negative slant?

Is it just me or does the article as of late seem to have an overly negative slant toward it, first came the quote about Christina Aguilera and how her voice has always been derived by musical critics (which isn't true) and now we get the quotes about how Britney "doesn't compare" to Madonna and Janet? It's fine to have negative information about Spears, but shouldn't there equally be some addition to things that are positive about her?

For instance there have been many critical reviews from Spears first three albums where her voice and her vocal performances have been praised. It just seems like this article is purposely being turned into a negative article just because their are editors who don't like or respect her. I would hate to see the subjectivity of this article altered especially since she is such a high traffic article.

Skinwalker03 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to adding more positive reception, but keep in mind the reality of the matter is that its far easier to find negative criticism of Spears than it is to find positive. She is probably one of the most severly neagtively received artists of her time and the article has to give accurate representation of the WP:WEIGHT of negative reception versus positive. Key points: generally speaking, critics mostly depsise her, fans love her, everybody agrees she can't sing, but she can give a killer performance. The article is always a work in progress, but the easiest way to help is to be bold and add informaion when you come across it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Really, her vocal abilities and her album performances have been praised through the years from where the opinions MATTER! Basing a negative article over one or two reviews by a same person is unaccepatable! People agree she can't sing? Billboard and Rolling Stone have already praised her vocal abilities and yet you want to give more weight to a rock fan on an ABC review? Seriously.... --Zefron12 (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone has also been highly critical of Spears:

Rolling Stone: Baby One More Time: "Yet the ballads of her debut evoke the worst of Debbie Gibson, even as Spears mimics the mannerisms of her hero Mariah Carey. While several Cherion-crafted kiddie-funk jams serve up beefy hooks, shameless schlock slowies, like "E-Mail My Heart," are pure spam."
Rolling Stone: Britney: "Despite Britney's five co-songwriting credits, her music is ultimately driven by producers who must work around her vocal limitations. But an identity is now asserting itself: Britney is by far her most personable album, the most consistently playful and the least wince-inducing."
Rolling Stone: In The Zone: "But the harder Spears tries to be Madonna or Janet Jackson, the less convincing she is. Her voice is so processed, its physicality almost disappears. R. Kelly can't resist mocking her in his "Outrageous," letting her boast about "my sex drive" and "my shopping sprees" with equal emphasis. In the Zone offers strip-club, 1-900 sex, accommodating and hollow. Beyond the glittering beats, Spears sounds about as intimate as a blowup doll."

Same goes for Billboard:

Billboard: Circus Tour Review: "Britney Spears must make other pop stars angry. Beyonce, Pink, Justin … none of them would dare use pre-recorded vocals during their live shows, despite the complex choreography of their performances. Madonna and Janet are guilty of using backing tracks to carry some of vocal weight, but certainly not all of it. Hell, even the Pussycat Dolls sing live. But Britney? She is, and always has been, about blatant, unapologetic lip-syncing. Case in point: at the New York stop of her anticipated comeback tour, Spears used her actual vocal chords only three times – twice to thank the crowd, and once to sing a ballad (though the vocals during that number were questionable, as well). Even the spoken bits in the songs came from a DAT. Somewhere, Ashlee Simpson has a dartboard with Brit's face square in the bull's-eye...The truth is that vocal prowess has never been the fuel that powers the Britney Machine. Singing simply isn't the point. Spears is an entertainer; a put-on-a-show kind of girl. And despite what happens behind the curtain, Britney's Circus tour is indeed quite a show.

I could go on, but clearly, there is an substantial amount of negative responses from music critics on Spears, even when you try to limit the entire scope of music analysis to Billboard and Rolling Stone. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, She has had some negative comments but we can find positive too, from Billboard and Rolling Stone also:

Rolling Stone: Oops!...I Did It Again: Britney Spears carries on the classic archetype of the rock & roll teen queen, the dungaree doll, the angel baby who just has to make a scene[...]You can hear the same fury in her brilliant version of the Stones' "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" as she vandalizes the words ("how white my shirts could be" becomes "how tight my skirt should be" -- perfect) and snarls in libidinal frustration[...]Britney's demand for satisfaction is complex, fierce and downright scary, making her a true child of rock & roll tradition.
Rolling Stone: CircusBritney may have left the psych ward, but on Circus, she proves she's still a freak[...]The fact that we're even curious shows Britney hasn't lost her talent: Her fans still can't look away.

I can't mention Billboard cause sources at the Billboard website aren't available anymore, but coming to All Music Guide we can see positive too. The matter is that on the same reviews where she's praised she also receives negative comments sometimes for not having so personal songs or even about her personal life, like in an All Music Guide review from "Blackout" where they say she pulled out a state-of-art pop dance even when she wasn't at "her best" (meaning how exposed was her personal life and how messy it looked to general public) so she worked with the best (producers). --Zefron12 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said she has never been praised. My point is that there has to be a balance between criticism and praise. Only listing reviews where she is given praise, or overemphasizing them, is obviously bias in favor of her and ignores critical commentary against her. Critical analysis of music, btw, is not restricted to Billboard, Rolling Stone or All Music (which has plenty of negative responses to her music as well). Those are only three examples of the entire field of study. The rolling stone article on Oops!...I Did It Again!, btw, I added to the Musical Style and Performace section some time ago. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

About the Allan Raible's review

I think this part of the article should be dropped. Why? Allan seems to be a hater of Britney. Read the review (http://blogs.abcnews.com/allan_raible/2009/01/review-britney.html) and you could see that. It's too repetitive, always enfocused in the syntetizer. It shouldn't be here, because that's supposed to be a serious article, without any opinion made by fans or haters. And the review is exactly like an attack. --201.127.160.216 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious articles include serious reviews written by professional music critics, both positive and negative. There is nothing wrong with the review. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But that review doesn't seem to be a serious review... It looks like an opinion of a rock fan. If you read the end, you would read that he says he's waiting for the next Nirvana. Is that professional? I don't think so.--Charles.mx (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a professional review, he analysis her voice, songwriting, and lyrics. Everyone gets bad reviews, everyone get compared to other artists. Look through all the reviews of Spears's albums from ...Baby One More Time to Circus: she gets good ones, she gets horrible ones, she gets positive comparisons to other artist, she gets negative comparisons to other artists - just like every other music artist in the world. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

His article shouldn't therefore be qualified as weighted. Since we can see Britney receiving general music reviews from where IT MATTERS! We can just quote: Billboard, Rolling Stone, All Music Guide, etc... This shitty guy is probably a fan of Christina Aguilera who can't see how she was super overshadowed by Britney and yet we can, yes, put bad reviews but do you see it elsewhere's biographies in Wiki? I guess no! Britney has received MANY positive reviews on which her vocal ability is praised and only weighting her whole musical style on a simple opinion by an ABC reviewer is not more than stupid! --Zefron12 (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)