Talk:Christina Aguilera/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Infobox

How do I edit the box at the bottom of the page? Thanks

Christina Aguilera is not born in Puerto Rico

NEED THE PIERCING PICTURE! I FORGOT WHERE THE PIERCiNGS WERE! Someone has put she was born there for some reason isnt she American??

"Grammy-winning"

I've removed "Grammy-winning" from the intro again. I feel to mention that Aguilera has won Grammy Awards in the opening sentence is slightly POV because her number of Grammy Awards is not very notable (it hasn't broken any kind of record or anything). Also, lead sections "should provide an overview of the main points the article will make" (per Wikipedia:Lead section), and Aguilera's Grammy Awards history is far from a "main point" in the article. I'd appreciate it if UnknownDude (talk · contribs) replied here rather than reverting without explanation again. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this a such a big deal, it's obvious that you seem to change it. Look at any other musician, actor, they have Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, etc. attached to their name in their intro, I don't see why this should be any different. Therefore, I'm going to continue to put it and you can continue wasting your time with this if you'd like. --72.199.153.225 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If other articles have similar introductions, then they shouldn't unless their Grammy/Emmy/Oscar history is particularly notable in some way (i.e. they have a record number of wins or nominations). Please read Wikipedia:Lead section, and bear in mind that Wikipedia is built on collaborative editing and not edit warring. Extraordinary Machine 00:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Extraordinary Machine, I don't believe it should be slapped on the intro just 'because'. As said, it should be a notable winning, come to compare Beyoncé Knowles leaving on Grammy ceremony with 6 Grammy Awards. Now that might be worth mentioning in the intro. -- Omernos 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time, but if you'd like to blow this out of proportion have fun. I don't care, and I'll keep changing it. For the record I'm not violating anything, I think many people have expressed their feelings for you so I'm not going to continue. Have fun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UnknownDude (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 August 2006.

It doesn't matter what other people feel about me; what matters is that they abide by the NPOV policy and style guidelines when editing Wikipedia. As myself and Omernos have explained, you haven't been doing that, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Extraordinary Machine 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

--I'm not trying to compare or anything, but on the article about Britney Spears, it introduces her as "Grammy winning..."; however, Spears has only won ONE Grammy and it is still mentioned on her article. I think it doesn't make sense to erase the pharse on the Aguilera article. Someone needs to re-insert the phrase into the Aguilera article, or erase it from other artists that haven't won a "notable" amount (which is a subjective judgement). Clearly, those who do not want this phrase on Aguilera's article are biased; to say that the number of Grammy's she has one is not "notable" is entirely subjective - she has won Grammy's and it should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.121.71 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 August 2006.

These comparisons to other articles read to me like non sequiturs, I'm afraid; that something is in one article does not mean it is okay (much less necessary) for it to be placed in another. I've edited the intro of the Britney Spears article to remove "Grammy-winning...". You're right, what is a "notable" amount of Grammys is a subjective criteria, which is exactly why we should use facts rather than our own opinions when deciding if her Grammy wins should be mentioned in the lead section. For example, does her number of wins hold a record, is it discussed at length in the article, or is it notable in some other way (a la Milli Vanilli)? With regards to editing articles, it shouldn't matter whether I or any other editor is "biased" against Aguilera (which is a shaky presumption to make, and a false one at that); it matters that we write articles (and the lead section) according to the style guidelines and WP:NPOV, which is a non-negotiable key policy on Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 00:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be rather pretentious. Christina is a Grammy winning performer. She won a Grammy. Therefore it is not off topic or wrong to mention that. Winning a Grammy in itself is noticeable, it's absurd to suggest that an artist should be extra specially special to have the Grammys mentioned. Should an actor have to win five Oscars in one night to be mentioned too? The majority of people out there, 99.9999999% of whom will never have the chance to win a Grammy, would consider three Grammys to be an extremely notable number. 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Aguilera; I probably have never even heard a song by her. However, I think removing "Grammy-winning" is insane. Winning a Grammy is notable -- hardly anybody does it, even in the music industry. It's the single most important industry award for musicians in the U.S. Winning it is notable, period. It doesn't mean the person is a great performer, but it tells you a great deal about their popularity and about their standing in the industry. It's even more relevant for someone like Aguilera, who's a pop star, and who's career centers around getting this sort of award. In fact, if there was nothing else in the article, the one thing that would seem to me to be NPOV would be her Grammy win. Making a huge edit war out of this is nuts. Going over to other articles and making huge edit wars over there is nuts. I'm sure you mean well, Extraordinary Machine, but I don't see how this helps the wiki. Removing actual fan bias from articles is a good; this is not fan bias, and pretending it is is really a waste of everyone's time. 69.209.215.55 17:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

1. There are over a hundred Grammy Award categories (some of which are for entire albums, in which case you have about a dozen people winning in one category), and they're handed out each year. We need to analyse this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis, as both myself and Omernos have indicated. Your assumption about Aguilera's career is rather shaky; I would think the careers of pop stars centre around record sales and chart positions rather than any notion of "their standing in the industry".
2. Read further up this page and you'll realise that this exact same point has been discussed before; the only editor who objected to removing a mention of Aguilera's Grammy Awards at that time gave no reasons for doing so.
3. In case you haven't realised, it takes two to edit war. Note that I had previously directed UnknownDude (talk · contribs) to the above discussions, asked him (both in messages on his talk page and my edit summaries) to provide justifications for his reverts, and told him not to undo other people's edits without any explanation. When somebody continues to do exactly that, I believe it would be senseless not to consider the possibility that he was deliberately introducing "fan bias" into the article. Assuming good faith has a limit.
4. You say that I'm "wasting everyone's time"; I'm not the one who has said they will keep reverting without further discussion. Protecting the article means that there's more discussion and less edit-warring, which is particularly important when (as I've said) somebody is repeatedly reverting without explanation. Extraordinary Machine 20:22, 23 August 2006(UTC)

You made your point Extraordinary Machine. Unfortunately, UnknownDude (talk · contribs) presented irrational reasons for him to keep reverting it, and it showed nothing but stubborness, and as I quote "I'm not going to waste my time, but if you'd like to blow this out of proportion have fun. I don't care, and I'll keep changing it." - UnknownDude (talk · contribs).

I mean, everbody has utmost respect to whoever gets involved and is willing to share information and edit, but obviously this wasn't the case. Also, I just don't find a reason to include it when you can find Awards and Achievements one-click away. -- Omernos 20:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I already established why I keep editing, and his has nothing to do with bias. Look at any performer, actor, they have Emmy winner, Oscar winner attactched to their name. This isn't any different, I already explained myself it's not my fault you can't seem to register it. There are other people here who have edited the same issue so don't point me out, get your facts right. I'm done arguing with you over this small miniscule issue that you're blowing out of proportion. Have fun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.153.225 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 August 2006.

Extraordinary Machine: well, the issue is being discussed now, yes? We've already established that Grammy's are frequently mentioned on Wikipedia. Aguilera's Grammy is also frequently mentioned in other media sources; a quick google search finds 24,000 hits (she's often referred to as "three-time Grammy winner Christina Aguilera.) Given this internal and external evidence, on what grounds exactly do you continue your opposition to including the information? (And no, the fact that there are a lot of Grammys in your opinion is not sufficient, since other sources seem to think that a Grammy is notable in any case.) 69.209.215.49 10:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another biography. The Grammy is mentioned, though further down. Note, though, that the result of putting her awards further down is to make the bio sound *more* fannish, not less. [1] 69.209.215.49 10:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For the second time, saying that other articles contain similar introductions is a complete non sequitur; the point I'm making is that in most cases they shouldn't, and I've explained why doing so violates the policies (WP:NPOV) and style guidelines (WP:LEAD). I Googled "christina aguilera biography grammy", and out of the first fifty or so results the only one I found that made any mention of Grammys at the beginning was a fansite. Regardless, Wikipedia shouldn't be written in the exact same way as "media sources", many of which are biased; note that some also refer to Aguilera as "the diva", ""Genie in a Bottle" hitmaker", "Pop beauty", ""Dirrty" singer" etc. The Yahoo! Movies biography you linked to doesn't have an introductory paragraph, so I don't see the relevance. If anything, it goes against what you said; it's riddled with pro-Aguilera POV ("Unfortunately, the song didn't make a dent in the charts", "a much-deserved break") and yet the writer still didn't feel the need to mention her Grammys at the beginning. Extraordinary Machine 16:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So you reject evidence from other Wikipedia articles and from other media sources. You site NPOV and style guidelines, neither of which really supports your point, that I can see. You point out that POV sites don't reference her Grammys in an especially prominent manner -- and then use that as evidence that referencing her Grammys is especially POV. Nothing you've said comes close to explaining why you feel a reference to Grammys in the lead is inherently POV. As I pointed out, referencing Grammys isn't even a qualitative statement; personally, I think winning a Grammy is worth sod-all, aesthetically. But it is a good shorthand way of showing that someone is well-respected in the industry, and (more-over) very popular.

The truth is, I don't even really care if the Grammys are mentioned in the lead. But I find your insistence that they shouldn't be bizarre. Oscars and Grammys are exactly the sort of thing you usually *would* mention in an encyclopedia lead, because they're factual and they show standing -- they are essentially a source testifying to the person's status.

Here's a question -- how does the Encyclopedia Britannica handle this sort of thing? Or even the World Book? Anyone have a copy handy? 69.209.215.49 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. It doesn't matter what other Wikipedia articles contain; it's what is in the policy and guideline pages. How (as yet unidentified) media sources write about Aguilera is equally irrelevant.
2. I was using the Yahoo Movies biography to demonstrate my point that if most of the Aguilera biographies out there (including the pro-Aguilera ones) on the web don't mention her Grammys straight away, then what does that say about the notability of those awards in the context of her career?
3. Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles)." I think the last bit is particularly important here; to mention in the first sentence Grammy Awards or similar achievements would make the "definition" persuasive rather than lexical, thus introducing POV.
4. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight states: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The "prominence of placement" applies here, because the Grammys mention was in the opening sentence and because, as Aguilera's number of wins isn't notable, it probably shouldn't be mentioned there.
5. I probably wouldn't mind having her first Grammy Award mentioned in the lead section if it was expanded to two or three paragraphs (thus allowing room for summarising less notable info the article makes), but as I've explained, introducing her as a "Grammy Award-winning" anything is against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Extraordinary Machine 21:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Proof of Grammy Wins

Christina Aguilera DID WIN 3 GRAMMYS to date:

http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx?title=&winner=Christina%20Aguilera&year=0&genreID=0&hp=1

3 Grammys does mean Grammy Award Winner. One, two five or more means the alame thing.

Alextwa

That wasn't what was being disputed. Please read the prior discussion first. LinaMishima 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

one outsider's view

It seems that to some degree this argument is over difference in style (honestly I haven't read the entire thing just scanned it). If so, you should try to compromise rather than each assume your own ideals will win out. I've been looking through the example articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Quality scale for some guidance. Maybe this will give you something to think about. The example feature article, Wayne Gretzky mentions the number of his Stanley Cup wins in the lead, but not until the 3rd paragraph (he has some even greater recognition that comes up earlier). The "A-Class" article on Linus Pauling mentions his Nobel Prize in Chemistry, but not until the end of the second sentence. Therefore, perhaps the model is to first describe the basics about your subject, and then move on to statements regarding major achievements etc. Regards, -MrFizyx 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. I'm beginning to think it might be a good idea to expand the lead to two or three paragraphs (like those featured articles you linked to) so we can include some of the "nitty gritty" like Grammys and things. The article's certainly long enough to warrant a lead as long as three paragraphs. I still don't think the article should introduce her straight away as "Grammy-winning", though, for the reasons I listed above. Extraordinary Machine 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

She is an artist who has won the highest award in her profession. Stating fact in a introduction is not a NPOV violation, unless of course it contains some spin, this doesn’t. Simply mentioning “Grammy award-winning…” is not biased. Saying she only won three Grammys instead of another singers (fill in the blank) 4, 5, 6, 7… to determine whether this statement applies is subjective and biased. An artist that has won this award should have it mentioned in their introduction. Why? Because its not as common as you make it seem. It is notable award and a major achievement for any musician. If it does not apply to this artist it should not for any. For the record I have never bought her music, nor do I consider myself a fan, I came across this debate by chance. Link5280 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Aguilera's grammy wins are not the only reason for her notablity. In my opinion, the grammy wins should be mentioned in the lead, BUT it shouldn't be used to describe who she is. They're many grammy award-winning artists who don't have their articles done that way. MrFysix had the best idea for tihs. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>}

Looking at other artists that have won a Grammy it appears any reference to it in their introduction is subjective. Some mention it while others do not, not sure how NPOV is defined here. Many of the Wiki articles appear to be hijacked by those with agendas and who try to justify it with their interpretation of Wiki rules. 71.246.82.94 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that we should have the grammy win noted somewhere in the lead section, like the second paragraph where we get into her career, instead of the first sentence. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A Grammy is a signifciant award for any performer and I'm sure that Christina would refer to it in telling of her career as a succssful performer. Further, if Christina Aguilera has won a Grammy Award then she is a Grammy Award winning performer. If she has won multiple Grammy Awards in the one year then she is a Multi-Grammy Award winning performer.

Extraordinary Machine's compromise sounds reasonable to me, at least. Are there still strong objections? 128.135.96.10 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the lead some time ago, but I just thought I'd mention it here. I referred to "Beautiful" as "award-winning" rather than "Grammy-winning", because according to its article it won several awards. Extraordinary Machine 12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Look once you have won a grammy you hav won a grammy. So i think she should be noted for her grammy wins. If i won half a grammy i want to be noted for it. I don't know whats your problem is extraordinary machine. what is your problem if she is noted for her grammy or not. And watch out she is going to win more next year.

First of all not EVERY singer wins grammys. Christina is one of the few and it is not fair to shadow her achievements because ONE person, who hasnt won any grammys, doesnt want it mentioned. Grammys are awarded based on the votes they are given from peers. Beyonce is actually a member and probably is the reason she won so many. And just because you win more than one in a night does not make you any better than another artist who won 5 or more. You guys both won a GRAMMY. The word here is "GRAMMY". Did christina win one? yes! did beyonce? yes did mariah? yes, therefor they are all "GRAMMY award winners"!!!!!

"Back to Basics was released to critical acclaim"

I have not seen anything but mixed reviews for this album. I wouldn't call it acclaim. 70.130.175.105 02:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Request addition #1 on Billboard chart despite protection

Please mention that Back to Basics went to #1. Official confirmation at: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003051744 Billboard.com] Hasty, Katey, "Aguilera Takes No. 1 Amid Five Top 10 Debuts".

KittenKlub 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is no longer protected. You may add this yourself. Petros471 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: songwriters and singer-songwriters

There have been now for some time a series of edits by annonymous IP addresses registered to Deutsche Telekom in Germany([2]). Here are the contribs for a few of these IPs: [3][4][5], but there are others. This person has been making a number of problematic edits, always without comments. One problem is the repeated atempts to apply the lable singer-songwriter or songwriter to Ms. Aguilera in the lead and infobox in this article. First, singer-songwriter is not appropriate here, read that article if you have problems understanding the term. Second, seeing as the present article does not discuss songwriting, and Aguilera's co-writing of a few songs is scarcely notable. I would argue that songwriter should also be removed from the lead and infobox as well. -MrFizyx 22:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera wrote all the songs on her latest album which means that songwriter is appropriate especially since she - of course - takes first credit as well. It seems more likely that the article needs to be updated. KittenKlub 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Then the current edit may not be as bad as I thought. If you are correct maybe there is some source that describes her transition to being a songwriter. -MrFizyx 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking aroung the net a bit. I can't find a source that discusses her songwriting. Has anyone else found anything? I agree that her recent album credits make it reasonable to state that she does get involved with songwriting, but to call her a songwriter in the first sentence is misleading. She didn't write her biggest hits and we should not diminish the credit that goes to those writers that did (people like Steve Kipner, Linda Perry, Bob Crewe, Diane Warren, etc.) . Perhaps we can agree on a more appropriate statement to place further down in the lead? -MrFizyx 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying she didn't write/co-write her "biggest hits" is somewhat US-centric. If you live in the UK, Dirrty was a bigger hit than say What A Girl Wants or I Turn To You (Dirrty went to Number one, I don't believe any of the other two did). She co-wrote that. Also the big thing about Stripped, at least from Aguilera in interviews, was that she was offering major contributions to her recorded work this time around. She also wrote the "rap" for Come on Over's radio version as well as the hook for Genie in a Bottle (she didn't think it was worth getting co-writing credit for, although legally it was). It would make sense to call her a singer-songwriter because compared to her contemporaries, she has made the most mention of writing her material plus the fact that she has co-written at least one song for another artist (albeit unintentionally), Kelly Clarkson's Miss Independent. A more accurate term would probably be singer/co-songwriter, but that sounds a tad dumb... 130.39.110.226 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

All that you are saying is interesting, and may be material for the article, but where are the sources for this? The main problem right now is that we dub her a songwriter in the first sentance and then never discuss it in the rest of the article. I also suspect we would be hard pressed to find one professional music journalist refering to Aguilera as a "singer-songwriter" she simply is not as notable for her writing as she is for other things and singer-songwriters do not in general employ a whole team of pros to co-write. I'm not saying her writing is not notable enough for the article, I'm just suggesting that it be discussed in more depth later in the article. -MrFizyx 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Back to Basics was released to critical acclaim"

I have not seen anything but mixed reviews for this album. I wouldn't call it acclaim. 70.130.175.105 02:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sense of Fashion

In the opening paragraph, the last sentence says that she is most known for her "vocal abilities and fashion sense". I agree with the vocal part, but I don't like the "fashion sense". I think it should be changed to "ever changing image" - since that's what she is most known for and its more specific.

Tour Section?

Should there be a Tour section for Christina Aguilera?

It is worked into the article. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 07:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vocal section

You people feeling alright? that's the closest to an acceptably sourced section on her vox in.. ever.--I'll bring the food 13:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That, I believe, is a well deserved compliment :P LinaMishima 14:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Would it be a good idea if we copied the pictures from the Ain't No Other Man and Beautiful articles and put them in this article? There are two good pictures of her in both of the songs' music videos. loulou 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

First artist of millennium

The MTV 2 Large New Years Special was for 2000. The millennium didn't start until 2001. We should remove mistakes like that from articles that have been sourced. Esque0 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Poised to sell less than previous albums"

"Despite the strong debut in sales, it is poised to sell less then her earlier albums, barely even going platinum. "

I removed this from the article. As someone mentioned on the Hurt page, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball which can predict album sales; additionally, to have 'barely gone platinum' in less than two months is not a sign of failure. i agree with u the should not predict album sales. back to basics is now platinium in america and has sold 2.2million copies world wide. It is doing good in the world. So people should stop predicting such. Besides who knew that her first album would sell up 8 million after just selling 250,000 in its first week.

Seventh Octave?

I would just like to make it perfectly clear to all users that Christina Aguilera cannot sing in the seventh octave. Her highest note recorded is F6, NOT C7 as believed by the few. Her lowest note is C3 which will cpmply with the information classifying her with a 4 octave vocal range. C3-F6 is her range. She can hit notes in the whistle register, however she is yet to exibit any control over or skill with these notes, and she is yet to exibit the ability to use these notes for extended periods of time. In order to become an accomplished whistle register user, one must be able to use the notes for at least 6 seconds, such as Mariah CArey, Minnie Ripperton, Adam Lopez, and Jill Scott. (Trent Jones 17:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

I have taken Xtina's off the list because she does not meet the requirements to be on that list. I have read through her biography and her vocal profile does not provide readers with any facts that Christina has the vocal capabilities of Minnie, Mariah or even Adam Lopez to be placed there. Furthermore there is some doubts as to whether she is to be listed on the Whistle register category, because the information provided said that she tackle the dog-whistle. Tackle doesn't mean she has succeeded hitting that note, but rather that she tried. Therefore, unless editors can provide info that states Xtina possesses that ability, then she is not to be put back, if such the case editors who dare to without proof might as well put Shanice and Debelah back too, because there abilities in the whistle register are more poignant. (Ke'Ke) 8:58 October 25, 2006

I agree. I'm a bit unsure if she possesses whistle register. She can hit a high note, but i'm not sure if it's in whiste register. The cited reference is not exactly a convincing one either, especially when it says--"Xtina tackles that dog-whistle high note". Can we get a better source? It needs to be more specific, like one that says which notes she hits. Also does Xtina really have 4 octave range? Which notes in what songs prove this?

Christina's lowest note is a C3 in the song At Last, and a D3 in the song Dreamy Eyes. Her highest note is a C7 in The Christmas Song, which she sings right along with the piano. Her highest live note is an A7 in Hello, and a G6 in What A Girl Wants in Stripped live in the UK. Most recently in the studio she hit F6 successfully in Soar. She has a flood of performances in her debut era in particular which include her delving into whistle register. November 15th

Worldwide sales

It's already in the Studio Album and Other Album boxes, and even in the mais article Christina Aguilera discography. So why post it again? I removed it.

Golden Stag festival

You could mention that she went at Golden Stag international festival in Romania, 1997, to represent USA. It's quite an important festival.

Sales figures

Based on this edit history of anonymous users making apparently random changes to sales figures with no edit summary or citation, it might be a good idea for someone to review the figures again. If we can add an easily-checked citation beside each figure, it might discourage random edits -- or at least make it easier to detect and fix them. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Album Sales

I wish people would stop changing the world wide album sales...I myself am one of those but it is to fix it because like her record label stated before 'Back to Basics' was released that she has sold approximately 25 million albums world wide so when people change her debut 'Christina Aguilera' and 'Stripped' to 16 million and 12 million respectively that really makes no sense to me since that surpasses the 25 million already which is stated by RCA .... Also the 'Mi Reflejo' album has sold a little over 2 million(either 2.1 or 2.2 my guess would be 2.1) but people are putting in 3 million and sometimes 5 million which is really off, and for 'My Kind of Christmas' it is approximately 1.3 million but some people keep changing that to 3 million....

So when people are putting them as 16,12,3 or 5,and 3 that adds up to 34-36 million which is way too high....

So people should just leave them at 12.5, 9.5, 2.1, 1.3 because that is 25.4 million albums sold world wide which is what the label is saying approximately 25 million....and now with 'Back to Basics' out her album sales world wide now are approximately 27 million

The good thing is that with 'Back to Basics' there shouldn't be any problems with the editing ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Basinger19 (talk • contribs) .

Albums section is disputed

Once again, this section has unreferenced sales stats, and the keep constantly changing. Before I challenge this article's GA standing, I would like to see a consistant source for Christina's album sales.

---

I was on youtube and was watching her interview on 20/20 and it says in the very first minute that her debut album has sold over 12 million copies, so we should just leave it at 12.5... here is the link to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnFccN4wFAI&NR However i cant find anything on stripped sales that is factual - B.A

---

Rockonthenet.com, a very reliable source, has Stripped listed as 3X Platinum.

---

Yeah i go to rockonthenet.com alot but it's not 3x platinum it is 4x platinum...and I'm talking about worldwide sales not just the U.S - B.A

---

you can't go platinum worldwide, it's a **national* certification* 68.229.164.101 07:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

---

the united world chart has platinum certifications(2 million) so actually yeah you can go platinum worldwide.Basinger19 23:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ikaphone(sic)

during the "debut era" Christina mentioned several times that when she performed for her family as a child she often would use her mothers hairbrush as her so called "ikaphone.." should that be included? I know atleast of one appearance on the Rosie O'Donnell Show that she mentioned this..--Geokaii 09:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)