Talk:Foxy Brown (rapper)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unsupported information and figures: Constant revisions

There are a number of contributors who keep re-inserting unsupported data about Foxy Brown's date of birth, record sales, positions of records in the charts, etc. The kind of data they keep inserting is mostly "better" for the artist Foxy Brown, e.g. higher record sales, etc. Also, their "data" is mostly of the approximate kind, e.g. "1.4 mill" for record sales. These contributors are generally anonymous, and concentrate their contributions to this entry mostly -- and specifically in "boosting" the artist's record, as described above. I take the initiative to invite them to contribute meaningfully in Wikipedia, instead of beautifying everything related to presumably one of their favorite artists. Example of such contributors : 67.85.208.159; 69.254.162.4; 4.254.226.202; 71.246.124.54; and others. Please provide reasonably reliable sources (and not, for example, just the artist's management press release) for the data you're inserting. The Gnome 05:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I move to have this article semi-protected, on account of non-stop vandalism. There are better things for serious Wiki contributors to be spending their time on, than deleting inane inserts. The Gnome 06:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As in many biographies of living persons, contributors tend to some times insert items that are written in prose style, express personal opinions on the subject (either positive or negative) rather than objective facts, and omit references or sources, usually on the assumption that "everybody knows this". However, all these are infractions of Wiki rules. The Gnome 09:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Family roots

"...mixed black and Trinidadian descent..." The interview says "Asian and Trinidadian" descent, which is too vague to be specific. Assuming that she is a Trinidad Marchand, then you're looking at (at the very least) 150-200 years of mulatto ancestry. The "Asian" could be either Indian or Chinese - likely both. "multiracial" is the only meaningful term. Guettarda 17:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Asian descent is Filipino, and as she states in another interview: "My father is Trinidadian and my mother is of Trinidadian descent".

How does Trini parents = Filipino??

Mostly likely Foxy probably has African and Indian heritage from India. If that is they case, what kind of Indian? Cause there are hundreds of differnt indian groups like Bengali or Telugu or whatever. By the way, Filipino is way off. That's what Jay-Z said. How the hell is that possible, you don't see any filipino in Foxy!!!

http://www.onlytrina.com/foxybrown/mtv2001.html - here she denies Filipino ancestry. Guettarda 18:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

singles table, cleanup tag

The accuracy of the singles table is in question. Brown has had at least five Hot 100 entries and many more R&B chart hits, both as headlining and featured artist. Why in the world is there a table for singles filled with dashes? Listing the singles in plain text is one thing, but if we dont have all of Brown's chart statistics, why create a table? It's incomplete and unencyclopaedic. -- eo 19:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC) she is actually of black african decent and it cant be traced to the exact country though -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.234.98 (talk • contribs)

no...she's is of Trinidadian & Trinidadian-Indian descent..- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.10.7.121 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

more cleanup - 2006 court dates?

did a major rework of this article again - removed lots of POV and formatting issues, etc. etc. I noticed several refernces to court dates that were to happen in early 2006, as well as her hearing surgeries. I haven't done a full internet search on the status of these, but if anyone has news, please add it with citations. -- eo 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Solitary Confinement section

I'm wondering if it is necessary, or even relevant, to state what the "other person" was sentenced to in the most recent of Foxy's legal problems are. After all, this article is about her, not "them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.193.94 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It shows that Foxy Brown was not, according to the prison authorities, at least, the sole guilty party in the altercation. But it's not that important as information, I guess. -The Gnome 07:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Foxy info

I am a big Foxy Brown fan and alot of this info you people are putting is inaccurate. Her album sales: Ill Na Na, 1 million Chyna Doll, 1 million, Broken Silence, 600,000. Please stop changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Br732 (talk • contribs) 08:05, July 26, 2006

Trivia

Does anyone have a source for the following. There's no mention in the Enough Cryin article:

"Foxy Brown was originally slated to appear on Mary J. Blige's single "Enough Cryin" from her album The Breakthrough, but was replaced at the last minute with Blige reciting her verse instead. This was because Jay-Z wrote the lyrics, but Foxy didn't do the track the way he wanted her to. Cam'ron, who is beefing with Jay-Z, is rumored to address that on a future track."

Mugshot

Is it really necessary to have a person's mugshot in their article? 84.150.118.197 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

The arrest section seems like a copyvio from wire reports; for example, [1]. Is there a reason the section shouldn't be deleted? -- Mikeblas 05:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section, it seems obvious that it's indeed been plagiarized. TobiasS 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Firmalbum.jpg

Image:Firmalbum.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 07:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth

According to Foxy Browns MySpace Account, she is still 26 years old. So she was born on 1979. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=63520254

A Different World

Was Foxy born in 1976 (IMDB), 1978 (former date on Wiki) or 1979 (current date)? Hotwine8 03:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

She was never born on 1976 or 1978. She was born on 1979. She was rapping at age 17 going on 18 in 1997. - A Different World, Sunday, September 10, 2006. -> 12:02 AM

Foxy was born in 1978. See her police booking report [2] "DOB 9/6/78".

The situation over her birth year is a mess. It needs a consensus, even if we are going to agree to disagree, and make sure the main article states that there is "confusion" over which is the correct date. Presently there are three, completely different birth years quoted in the article ! One in the infobox, another in the article, and a third in the category listing. Wikipedia's reputation suffers when a situation like this continues for any length of time. Derek R Bullamore 21:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fixing up the DoB mess. The evidence of her police booking report, supplied by the anonymous user above, should be conclusive enough, until something else surfaces. But the whole controversy about her place of birth and ancestry probably needs to be placed in a separate chapter in the Foxy Brown entry. What do you people think ? The Gnome 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User 69.254.162.0, who seems to originate from Tallahassee, Florida, USA, and whose only contributions so far have ben to the Foxy Brown entry, keeps changing the date of birth back to the more recent date claimed. The most reliable source of information we have, so far, is the police report, which clearly shows Ms Brown's DoB to be 1978. We should leave this information up, as it is, until a source more reliable than the police report surfaces. The Gnome 07:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There can only be one explanation- Foxy Brown has a time machine, and leaped forward in time a year or two or three(depending on differing accounts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.101.34 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All Music Guide supports a 1979 birth, but the police report suggests 1978. Gosh, what's going on here? What's more of a reliable source, a police-issued arrest warrant or a music site? I'm getting confused...Anyway just wanna give both sides of the issue, to decide which is a more reliable thing. But we could display both years, per the Alicia Keys article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we go by quantity of sources or quality of sources? There are quite a lot of sources, in addition to All Music Guide, which support 1979 as Brown's birth year. And there is only one (1) police report, which, by the way, has never been challenged as to its veracity by Brown's camp, citing 1978 as her birth year. Police record or artist's claims? In my mind, this is not even an issue, let alone a "controversial" one : She was born in 1978. I say list the birth year as "1978" and Keep the other information under a "Controversies" heading. The reason is that the artist and her camp insist (e.g. her MySpace account) on "1979", which creates a controversy. An unsubstantiated claim but still a controversy.-The Gnome (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I say quality. For example, take this old Entertainment Weekly article from March 2001 listing Brown as 21 years old at the time. Thus supports a 1979 birthdate. Don't promote false controversies on wikipedia unless you have a reliable source saying there really is one. So let's exclude the 1978 one for now, I guess.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should go by quality. But surely you meant to write "let's exclude the 1979 one for now", right? I mean, the police report lists 1978 as Brown's year of birth. It's quite conclusive. As to the Controversies section, I believe that we should leave it as it was : When the subject of the entry is the one promoting "false controversies", Wikipedia should mention this. If musician Sun Ra seriously claims he is of the "Angel Race" and not from Earth, but from Saturn, then Sun Ra's entry in Wikipedia should mention that fact (i.e. that Sun Ra claims he's from Saturn), as indeed it does. -The Gnome (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Government agencies (including the police) are not above inaccuracies and typos, for example, declaring a living woman dead eight years ago and still giving her problems from it (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331647,00.html) or letting a suspect and soon-to-be murderer walk free because the warrent spelled his name wrong (http://www.policeone.com/news_internal.asp?view=116603). Saying that because someone never challenged it so it must be true is ridiculous as the possiblity remains that no one may have noticed it or no one cares (it was just ONE year's difference). And how is this a controversy? A controversy would be several years difference with reliable sources pointing out the inaccuracies. A simple sentence quicky noting that her police report said a different year than every other source out there is enough, if it is even needed since chances are, in the face of the numerous other sources including the person herself, it's wrong. Cigraphix (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point about the not-always-accurate records of government agencies is well taken. But, in this case, the police report is known to Brown's camp -- who have never challenged its accuracy. (Note please that the direction of the discrepancy is an additional factor: The police report has Brown as older than she claims to be. Artists, and celebrities in general, oftentimes tend to present themselves as younger than they are.) As to "every other source out there", these seem to be feeding off each other for Brown's curriculum vitae. A cursory examination of the websites in question would show that they are mostly repeating a certain amount of information, quite possibly put out by the artist's agents, as is typical. And let's not forget the readiness of such websites to quote Wikipedia itself! In conclusion, although we must take into account that government agencies are not, indeed, infallible, a government agency's data (and we are talking about trivial data here, not some loaded political description!) should be accepted much more seriously than all the other non-primary sources "out there". Even if the police record could be wrong, Wikipedia should cite the evidence per the police report, in the absence of any other serious evidence. -The Gnome (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly true, but you're accusing her of lying with only a single police report as evidence. This artist, and thus information about her, has been in the spotlight since the mid 90s, when she was a teen barely old enough to drive - that is quite a long time to lie. Someone who is older has reason to lie about their age because they might be embarrassed, what reason would someone who is younger lie about their age, other than a minor trying to get cigarettes and alcohol? And those don't count since, by your allegations, she was claiming she was younger than she really was. And you never addressed why would anyone would care about such a minor typo even if it was wrong. I know that if I was in such a position, I might have laughed if I saw the typo and never thought about it again. Cigraphix (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What you, rather dismissively, call "a single police record" is more often than not how History is written. The sources for the historical record, as already (and very correctly) stated in this thread, are judged on "quality" rather than "quantity". And a police record is what historians call "a primary source". Yes, police records are not always reliable. (Sometimes, in History, a police file would even contain deliberate falsifications.) But this is the exception, rather than the rule. A historian would never seriously consider as more reliable the (numerous) fan sites, blogs, record reviews, and other "secondary" sources, often copying each other, over a (single) government agency's record. We might as well throw out census records --or give preference to individual claims over census records-- while we are at it. The rest of your remarks, where you are essentially trying to argue that an artist would not try to lower her age (even by one year) and, without any evidence, that the police report date is a "minor typo", are pure and unfounded speculation. And could only be countered with more speculation -- but is this advisable? Or preferable to simply accepting the record? (For example: "What reason would someone who is younger lie about their age, other than a minor trying to get cigarettes and alcohol?" Your are ignoring the fact that Brown, as an artist, made much (possibly with justification) of her young age and early start-up in the music business; being even one year earlier supports that image.) -The Gnome (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

They were no more speculative than your earlier speculative accusation that she is lying about her age. Your (speculative and likely original research) reasoning that Brown herself wasn't a quality sources was: "Artists, and celebrities in general, oftentimes tend to present themselves as younger than they are." So consider the three best sources as to a person's age are: the person themself, the parents of the person (most particularly the mother), and documentation of the person's birth (like a birth certificate). We don't have access to birth documentation or Brown's parents, we have the claim made by her and also a police report. A police report is not scrutinized like a birth certificate (a birth certificate is probably one of the most important forms of ID issued), so human error is a stronger possiblity with the police report than a birth certificate. With a person there is only one strong possibly: they are lying (a person being unaware of their own DOB is extraordinarily rare). I have seen no evidence, that is not horribly speculative, to believe Brown is lying; if this was a court of law and this was all the evidence provided, the case would have been thrown out (she's innocent until proven guilty). For the sake of WP:NPOV, I agreed that the police report's reported DOB can be put in as a note the discrapency after Brown's claimed DOB, but it should definitely not be given more favorability like you say. Because of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, it should not come first or Wikipedia seems to be taking that point of view that she is lying. And by claiming that a person is lying is making an exceptional claim, which requires a highly reliable source that has subject matter that DIRECTLY addresses the possiblity of her lying about her age. Cigraphix (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see this is going nowhere. Fine, a few more words, then : My speculation as to the reasons behind the discrepancy was in response to the question posed as to the possible reasons for it. The question invites only speculation. Now, are you seriously suggesting that we must accept a person's own claim over a police record, as a rule? Forget about "lying" for a moment (and the "horrible" aspects of it). How do we know that it's the subject of this controversy who provided the DoB as "1979"? We do not; it is simply a piece of information, cited (and repeated) in blogs, music biz promos, or other such websites. There is not one significantly reliable source among them! Yet, on the basis of "quantity" (and the mysterious argument that "she's innocent until proven guilty") you are saying that we must accept their information over a police record's! Why? Because presumably we are not just contributors to an encyclopaedia but arbiters of the truth. Because there is no Birth Certificate available. Because police records are sometimes false. Because typos happen. And because one would not have bothered with a "small typo" anyway. This can't be serious. (But it is.) -The Gnome (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I now see that the police record listing her year of birth as "1978" is no longer anywhere in the article. Totally expunged! I presume this is part of serving the Wikipedia users in accordance to all those rules you kindly linked to. Fascinating. -The Gnome (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heritage

I know she's half Afro-Trinidadian, but I'm not sure if her other half is Chinese Trinidadian or Indo-Trinidadian. In the interview she said that she's Trinidadian and Asian, but Chinese and Indian people are both Asian, so no one knows specifically. Judging by her appearance, she looks Afro- and Indo-Trini. Blackjays1 00:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Controversies" with other sections? Discussion

It has been suggested that some of the information in this article's "Criticism" or "Controversy" section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation.

Disagree The length of the relevant secion would overwhelm the rest. Some individuals' biographies merit such a separate section. -The Gnome 17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I think there should be integration because of WP:CRITICISM and WP:NPOV, and this article should discuss some arrests lesser than others. For example Foxy Brown was just recently out of a longtime jail sentence, and "controversies" dominated much of her life from 2001-2007, so I support integration of the section, that's why I've retagged it and will clean it up later. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "later"? You are going to "clean it up" and integrate Controversies into the main text without waiting for a discussion to develop? -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am doing all this in accordance with neutrality and undue weight policies, which says that it's not a good idea to push all negative aspects of a subject into one section because it implies editorialization of the article.

Plus, are we obliged to list every single celebrity crime, arrest, court appearance, etc. out there? Because: if we can do write about Foxy Brown's assault of Jacki-O (that was from 2005 I think), why not write articles about your next-door neighbor who got arrested for aggravated assault? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

About your point on "celebrity crime": The list of Foxy Brown's run-ins with the law is atypically long. Hence, the extended text describing them in her entry. It's as simple as that. There are a lot of celebrities who have or have had run-ins with the law and to to the extent that they are extraordinary, e.g. Mel Gibson's arrest while DUI and his subsequent anti-semitic slurs, and not trivial, they are most certainly worthy of extended mention. A simple matter of notability.

As to your intention to change the article per your interpretation of "how it should be written", I find it to be quite arrogant. There's a discussion going on, as we speak, which has been initiated under this very section. It would be preferable, and more in accordance to the Wiki rules and spirit, if you would show patience instead and wait for some discussion or consensus to develop. The Gnome (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

Because the subject's legal issues are "atypically numerous" (as noted above) the dedication of one section to that aspect of her biography makes the article more readable. — Athaenara ✉ 05:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Although in theory the article might look more readable, think about the WP:BLP policy. Yes, all those crimes are sourced, but does a list of all her crimes shoved in one whole section read like an encyclopedia, or a tabloid? Think about it.

Here's my plan of reorganization. The "petty" crimes such as the leaving NYC without permission or slapping someone with a BlackBerry should be given less weight, per WP:UNDUE. However, I think that her actual longtime jail sentence that caused the delay of Brooklyn's Don Diva should be given more article space, but within the main biography section. So yes, the crimes are "atypically numerous"...but rather minor. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You went ahead with your changes even though your proposals were not seconded by another editor. Which is somewhat presumptious. (And it's not her "crimes" which are atypically numerous; it's her legal issues, which cover a wider area than just breaking the law.) You are doing a disservice to the Wiki user who wants to be informed of the subject's life. I will probably change the format back to the correct one, sometime this weekend. -The Gnome (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The changes which Andrewlp1991 did amount to original research since, by omitting certain news items and affecting their relevance, the information is slanted in favor of the entry's subject. Andrewlp1991 erased the seperate "Controversies" section and arranged the entry by albums issued. The controversíal and legal incidents in Brown's life were incorporated there. To show how wrong this is, and how it alters the information on Brown, I'll quote the percentage of words referring to controversies : Ill Na Na 11%; Chyna Doll 53%; Broken Silence 62%; hiatus 80%; Brooklyn's Don Diva 100%. And Andrewlp1991 insists that the subject does not merit a separate "controversies" section? Ridiculous. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! What happened?!? So to address your concerns, I've created a new section about her jail sentence that cause Brooklyn's Don Diva to be delayed so many times as well as the many legal issues she entered during her hiatus. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding sectioning off "controversial" events in Brown's life, I'm all for sectioning off her 2007-08 jail sentence and any time period where Brown had been heavily in trouble, as I've just done. But I'm in doubt about the more trivial, petty illegal things she did back before Broken Silence. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

When these "trivial, petty illegal things" become numerous, they acquire a cumulative significance. In any case, the entry is clearly better now. -The Gnome (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Singles" section: accuracy disputed

There are edits back and forth about the chart positions of the artist's singles. Can we have a third-party, reliable source to set this matter straight? (Not sources like the artist's management, of course.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You can refer to the sites AllMusic.com or Billboard.com to get the facts straight. That way, it'll be easier to find numerical changes as vandalism. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked back and forth from www.billboard.com and all the date is accurate, I'll source it ASAP. Cg1324 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They are sourced. All are 99% accurate. Cg1324 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Age in infobox

It is not necessary to state Brown's age in the infobox. Even more so, since her age is a matter of controversy, which the article describes at length. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, using Template:Birth date and age on infoboxes, as is standard practice on biographical articles of living people, automatically applies age based on birthdate.

Filmography

I added a filmography section from her credits on imdb.com . I do not know how to add references. Please someone do that for me the source link is http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0113564/ . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg1324 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added the IMDB link in external links. I don't think it's neccesary for individual references. Kevin (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks. I didn't want it to get removed. Cg1324 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

im a HUGE foxy fan and all of u who dislike her r just destroying her profile!!! stop changing the record sales!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.185.74 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)