Talk:Justin Bieber/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

POV

The article seems to be written by fans with a conflict of interest. Perhaps someone who is not affliated with Justin Bieber should come and edit this article? Also, large amounts of vandalism on this page.01001010101010010101001 (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Most disliked video on YouTube

Bieber, whose music video "Baby" mentioned in this article as the most watched video on YouTube, is also the most disliked video on YouTube and it also has the most percentage of dislikes for a music video by any artist on the web site. I think if the most watched video on YouTube is mentioned as an achievement of Bieber, the latter should be mentioned at least on "Target for critics, pranksters, and parodies" section.

I'm not a Bieber-Hater. But this article seems a little one-sided to me, compared to other artists' articles on Wikipedia. (Like, I think the "Target for critics, pranksters, and parodies" section should be replaced with a new section named Criticism and controversies) (Open for discussion) Composemi (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, this article is completly one-sided. It should be added. I realized is the most dislikes video on YouTube too, and thousands of people would do the same. There is a lack of content. (I said it before one month ago) --Catalaalatac (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to be a textbook example of {fanpov}. someone should do something about it.

Nothing can be added without reliable sources. There is no problem with stating that it is the most viewed video in YouTube history, and therefore the most disliked. However a reputable source needs to be cited. The most viewed has a reference, but you just can't say its the most disliked video and reference Youtube. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 16:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If the source being cited for that statistic is the You Tube page where the video appears, than it is not a reliable source as 1) it is constantly changing and 2) it borders on original research as an editor has to go to the page and make that personal assessment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not “Baby” was once the most disliked video, Rebecca Black's video for “Friday” has now surpassed it with over 1.3 million dislikes, and the information on this page should be updated to reflect that. I I K I I (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone interview

In 2011 Bieber was interviewed by Vanessa Grigoriadis, a journalist for the magazine Rolling Stone while driving around Atlanta. In the interview, Bieber voiced his opinion on a series of controversial subejects such as homosexuality and abortion. His views on homosexuality, which he holds to be a choice, especially sparked controversy as did remarks on rape. Huffington Post on the Rolling Stone interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchChef (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Has the interview been discussed in any other places? I think it would take more than a single Huffington Post story to call the controversy widespread enough to warrant a mention. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to pursue it, but a quick check of the Proquest newspaper archive for TEXT(Justin Bieber) AND TEXT(rolling stone) AND TEXT(abortion or homosexuality) brought up at least 12 different articles from papers in four countries about this. One headline calls it "A BIEBER BROUHAHA" while the New York Times more darkly writes of the "Twilight of the Teen Idol". It seems to qualify as a controversy.   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it could just be added alongside the information about his views in Rolling Stone article in the personal life section, just like something on the order of the comments sparked controversy, and who defended and who was outraged...blahblabhablah. But on another term, Bieber did not say "holds homosexuality to be a choice" in the interview. Candyo32 19:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We would need a WP:RS for the assertion "sparked controversy". Just overviewing a couple of articles and calling this a "controversy" by ourselves is WP:SYNTH. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, I actually agree. I was just throwing that out there since above users thought so. Candyo32 21:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. However the comments have been called "controversial". "Experts find Justin Bieber's controversial abortion comments 'positive'" The Hindustan Times. New Delhi: Feb 20, 2011.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, this line in an article focused on his anti-American comments:

• Bieber's thoughts, which were released Wednesday in an online preview of the article, sparked controversy among Americans. Dozens spent the afternoon composing blistering comments of their own on the magazine's website.
  • "Baby Baby -better be born in Canada; Bieber disses american health care -and says no to abortion" Lynn Saxberg. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Feb 17, 2011. pg. A.4

A caption in the New York Times reads:

• Entranced: On Feb. 2, Fans Lined Up to See the Movie "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never" in Times Square. Two Weeks Later, His Remarks in Rolling Stone Embroiled Him in Controversy.
  • "Twilight of the Teen Idol" Jon Caramanica. New York Times. Feb 20, 2011. pg. WK.3

Here's another Canadian paper:

• But the interview features other Bieber facts that illuminate the pop star's views on a variety of topics -- most of them seemingly crafted to court controversy.
  • "Sex, geopolitics and abortion according to Bieber; 'It's like killing a baby?' and more from the pop star" Leah Collins. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Feb 17, 2011. pg. AL.1

So "sparked controversy" is even usable as a quoted view.   Will Beback  talk 

Good research. I agree. Thank you guys. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, since no one else was going to restore it I added "sparked controversy" back to the article.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these edits, but his comment about not wanting to become an American citizen would surely interest some readers. I'm including that as well (and, so as not to leave the reader wondering, noting that he cited Canada's health care system as a reason). JamesMLane t c 04:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Joke name

Odd that there is no single mention about his popular "joke name" Justin Bieber. Unless that kind of names aren't allowed in Wikipedia? --Pek (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

......? Candyo32 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

??? Did you mean to put something other than "Justin Bieber" above? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was mentioned to write Justin Beaver, not Justin Bieber. I wonder how did that mistake happen, oh well... --Pek (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of common jokes/names directed toward many people, but for the most part, they're not important to mention in articles. --Limxzero (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Show

Any place for his appearance on The Daily Show on February 3 (American only, Canadians can see it at The Comedy Network for 30 days after air date) in the article? He and Jon Stewart "switch bodies" apparently before the show, they "switch back" during the intro (thanks to a skull - yeah, weird), and when Bieber leaves the set says he hopes Jon doesn't mind the new tattoo - a reference to the Never Say Never movie (#neversaynever).

This was a promotional segment for his new (at the time) film, clearly. Since I am not working on this article (I'm a Daily Show fan, not a Bieber fan, just saw him on there), I'll let everyone here decide on how (if at all) to include it. CycloneGU (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

its an hour later in canada not 30 days Alertfiend (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life Activist

Should he really be inn the pro-life activist category? I was looking at it and saw Justin Bieber. Just because he is pro-life doesnt make him a pro-life activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenosy (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actor

To me, the first sentence of the article suggests that Justin Bieber is as known as an actor as he is a singer-songwriter. I think that's not the case. Should it be rewritten? ripple (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that the sentence says he is a singer first and an actor second is fair enough. --Limxzero (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal life

Upon examining this section, I think it would be more appropriately named "Personal beliefs". --Limxzero (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hatred of Justin Bieber not mentioned

Should it not be mentioned in this article that a LOT of people simply hate him, particularly for the things noted in the criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxdude96 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if such a claim can be attributed to a reliable source. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not "Most disliked video on YouTube" anymore

Today, Rebecca Blacks "Friday" has superseded the video of "Baby" as the "most disliked video" on Youtube. This should be edited. Crush-40 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It needs to go with an independent reliable source (not Youtube). Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Blacks Friday has over 3 million dislikes while Baby has just under 1.5. Hows that for reliable? --Jacobfrid (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Singing Range?

Should it be mentioned what his range is (tenor, countertenor... boy soprano)? Sorry, but I don't actually know what it is, nor have I a source (obviously).
- Krem^{Tell me stuff}_{♫Whaaaat I've Doooonne!♪} 9:37 PM, 7 April 2011 A.D.

Gotta have a source. Corvus cornix_talk 01:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Pederasty case involving Bieber

I just found an article talking about Bieber. The link is here. It is in Catalan, if I find this in English I will link it. Catalaalatac (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

not sure how this is relevant to this article - Moxy (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Google Translate= The Catalan police have arrested a man for 33 years Mataró crimes of prostitution and corruption of minors. Had created a false identity on the network that served as bait to connect with children. This corresponded to the identity of a young model, thanks to his professional success was a friend of such influential figures among adolescents as Paris Hilton or Justin Bieber.

Inspector Dominic George emphasized the high power of seduction that exercised over their victims. The convinced to undress and show themselves pornogràficament webcam sessions.

The detainee, now in provisional prison, he contacted more than 380 victims and the police are now trying to know how many would personally contacted.

Edit request from 92.9.188.70, 21 April 2011

Justin Bieber is currently dating Selena Gomez

92.9.188.70 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 23:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.238.198.41, 23 April 2011

Justin bieber arrested?

In 2009,Justin bieber has been Arrested for Shoplifting lyrics that would go good with his Song"Never say never".Which was his future roll with "Jaden Smith"He was arrested for 6 weeks in Jail and was kept as a bad singer.

24.238.198.41 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for page protection

I know people hate Justin Bieber for whatever stupid reason they have, but it's not necessary to litter the page with vandalisim about false info like death and arrest.

People, grow the hell up and stfu about Justin ok?! If you don't like him then ignore him and move on morons. Geez...people these days. You idiots are just jealous cuz you can't be famous and he can. Seriously, GROW UP. PS: I'm not a fan, just someone tired of the hatred toward him and stuff. Hajiru (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Hajiru

 Done Protected for 3 days. Rcsprinter (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Exact photo date

If you need to know, the exact date for the main photo is April 23, 2011 according to the My World Tour schedule in Indonesia. Kansas212 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Paparazzi and WP:NOTNEWS

Not wanting to edit-war I am opening this section to discuss the latest edit about Bieber's scuffle with a paparazzo. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM as well as WP:UNDUE this edit will be removed unless compelling arguments are put forward to keep it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree the guy is in the news every other week about something - If it goes to court etc... then we have info to write about. But until then we are not a diary of hes weekly celebratory exploits.Moxy (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. If every time Bieber pushed a paparazzo we have to include it in his biography this article would be converted to a tabloid. Thank you Moxy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good call. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Born Place

He born in which city ? London or Ontario.please correct it.. Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 08:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He was born in the city of London, in the province of Ontario, in the country of Canada. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Paternity Test?

Why is there no mention of this controversy, when all other celebs have a category for controversies? MPA 22:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Lede

“Justin Drew Bieber (/ˈbiːbər/ BEE-bər, born March 1, 1994) is a Canadian singer-songwriter, musician, producer, entrepreneur, investor, and actor.”

Come on, seriously? He isn’t half those things. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 07:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia

Shouldn't there be a section about him being the butt of homophobic jokes because of his dress sense and high-pitched voiceJackfrederick20 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention about critisism of Justin Bieber. At the time there was.[1]. --Cary (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Cut4Bieber

Do we have any more sources of this Twitter trend? I'm seeing the Gay Nigger Association of America (#GNAA) being inplicated as a contributing factor, with posts involving the deaths of three people due to self-harm. Regarding the deaths, I haven't found any sources regarding any reports so far, and suspect that it might have been fabricated by the GNAA and 4Chan to give the "impression" that they are reporting on current events.-- OsirisV (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should also include some information about "#baldforbieber" since this is not the first time something like this has happened. teammathi (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "#cut4bieber" section be moved to the Twitter section? teammathi (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed this topic - the article is not about his fans - its about him and his actions - not about what people do because of him. I have also removed any references to TMZ and will replace the ref from E! news - Celebrity Gossip websites are not what we consider reliable here.Moxy (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Bieberfever request

from = bieberfever to Moxy by email - only a potion of the text is below...

Dear Moxy thank you so much for helping with the Justin Bieber article on Wikipedia. As you have suggested in the past we are contacting you again to preform an edit on our behalf. Please add the following books to the future reading area if possible.

1. Justin Bieber: Just Getting Started
2. Nowhere but Up: The Story of Justin Bieber's Mom

 Done - Moxy (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Altering the E! Online quotation on his media rant

Bieber f-bombed the paparazzi. I don't dispute that. However, E! Online, bowdlerized the quote.

My concern is that we've violated WP:Offensive material by undoing that change. Per that guideline: "when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps our style guidelines."^{[emphasis added]} Why should we not follow that guideline here? —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Twitter

Reports are posting that his Twitter follower numbers are not what they seem to be justin-bieber-is-only-half-as-popular-as-he-seems-on-twitterIrish Melkite (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Monkey

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2013/05/17/bieber-monkey-shelter-bill.html?cmp=rss Back in the news again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The '15 year old part'

In the section 'Media scrutiny and legal incidents' 's last paragraph, it writes that the one in bed is 15 years old but i the citation, it's only specified that the woman is "young" and the 15 yr old is the Holocaust victim on the guest book he vandalized. Should be two completely separate incidents ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 13:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Relationships section

I removed this section. We cannot use sources like the Daily Mail, People and TMZ to support anything on a living person. Please, if it's important to you to have this section, construct one based on reliable sources. --John (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As WP:RS says, source reliability is a matter of context, and as RSN discussions have stated, such pop culture sources are appropriate for basic on info on public relationships. There is no blanket ban on sources like People or The Daily Mail and, as you're an admin, I'm surprised you would claim something like that. No to mention, the sources claim nothing beyond the routine. Are you really going to claim People is an unreliable source on Bieber and Gomez showing up at an event they undeniably showed up at? Let's not abuse WP:RS now - especially considering these types of sources are used elsewhere in the article's personal life sections without issue.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lets see if we can find some better sources then [[Daily Mail] or TMZ (both horrible tabloid newspapers). The info should be sourceable to more reputable references. Because lets face the facts - if reliable published sources do not include the information that we find in tabloid newspapers, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include. That said nothing rely wrong with the info just some trivia that needs better sources thats all. I will look to see what is out there.Moxy (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

TMZ is worthless, I'll admit, but The Daily Mail and People are fine for this info in context, as I stated, and simply calling them "horrible tabloid newspapers" is no argument.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually calling them "horrible tabloid newspapers" is how we go about determining there value - Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - the reliability of the sources has been called into question - thus we must heed the waring of editors and do our best to find more reliable sources - not dismiss there concerns. But like I said no big claims here so should be no problem sourcing to real publications.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on what the People magazine lead says, it's certainly not anything close to a raging tabloid.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with People magazine not a great source - but has a good reputation unlike the very entertaining TMZ and the highly criticized Daily Mail.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail I have little problem with, and the section does not cite TMZ. It does, however, cite MTV, USA Today, and Reuters, which are reliable.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree MTV and the like are reliable. I have always felt bad for the Daily Mail as I like the writing - but not only is it a tabloid style paper, its highly criticized as promoting conservative political positions and grossly biased reporting - not that its relevant here in this case.Moxy (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: How many awards Justin Bieber has won

24.47.203.94 posted this comment on 21 July 2012 (view all feedback).

How many awards Justin Bieber has won

Any thoughts?

W-E (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably all of them. An editor would need to find a list somewhere in a reliable source to add them to the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber found a list. Probably not complete though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I copy/pasted the tables from the main article. Hopefully they both get updated to match as his career goes on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

Why is this classified in Category: Androgyny? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find that category in the article. Where is it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It would appear the category is supported by sourced text in the article: "Bieber's androgynous appearance has also been frequently noted in the media, including when he appeared on the cover of LOVE magazine's androgyny issue in 2011." —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

An editor keeps edit-warring, adding unverified tabloid allegations into the article in violation of WP:BLP. I have referred the matter to BLPN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A normal problem on articles of people that make the news and magazine rounds daily - hes in the news constantly. Simply have to keep an eye on this problem of guess work media being added. Moxy (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

True. This article is indeed a perennial target for this type of trivial speculation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

media legal section

read tonight that justin is banned from driving in california. source: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/justin_beiber_banned_from_driving_6PMhIc7wpuq7AB8rLhztiIStopde (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Meme

There seems to be a bit of a meme going around currently with people claiming his music (or his person) is a crime against humanity; see this article for a recent example.

I don't have any good sources for this currently, but I do think it belongs in the article. Anyone know of a reasonable source that could be used? Yoe (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Retirement"

Can editors adding the "news" of his "retirement" to the lede please realize that this is an encyclopedia article and not Entertainment Tonight or whatever passes for infotainment? And also: Justin Bieber is NOT retiring from music --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. Unfortunately the edit-warring keeps going on. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Biber goes both ways, retiring and not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

add inter wiki link please

Please add inter wiki link ur:جسٹن بیبر I am not permitted to do it. Thank you Fmc47 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a newspaper

I have removed some more guess work and speculations sourced. We are not a news paper and have no need to post guess work or to list ever time hes in the news -WP:NOTPAPER. Hes in the paper everyday no need to have this info here-- Moxy (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why criterion are you based on to remove that information? All of the information placed there refers about the Bieber's controversial issues recently happened, having been covered by media not only from Argentina but international newspapers and websites. You can't do things so arbitrarily. - Fma12 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hes in the paper everyday and we have no need to list his daily activates as newspapers do. Please take the time and read over WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:SOAPBOX. 3 paragraphs on what he did in just one country is simply too much as this happens daily for him where ever he goes. -- Moxy (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

According to those, the section "controversy" should be supressed from the article so Bieber gets involved in controversial acts very often. Unfortunately, you prefer to revert (an action what I really hate) instead of editing the article or section to make it a bit short, if 3 paragraph are "too much" according to your personal criterion to determine what should be included and what not. - Fma12 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We could trim it a bit but cant understand the sources to do so. That said still dont see how this is different from ever other day of his life. The fact that its so called recent is the problem. Does this affecting his job?? is he in court over this or being sued? will this matter in a month from now are all question to think of. Things like accused of assaulting limo driver happen everyday...so we have to look at what is relevant to add. If his charged or in court that is notable....but I dont think most of the guess work incidents in the daily newspapers around the world are important enough to include here. All that said lets see what others have to say !!! -- Moxy (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I can trim the section a little bit if necessary, but I still consider that the incidents in Argentina must be included here. I don't want to be involved in an edit war again but I'll defend what I think is right. There is no need to use only sources in English (at least, WP does not specify anything about this), moreover the incidents happened in Argentina so they were covered by local media, of course (although then the news spreaded around the world). If other editors don't leave their opinions opposing to this, I'll add the information again. - Fma12 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We can use sources in any language, but we cant expect others to use the source to change the content if they cant understand the content in the source. Lets give it a few days see what othres say....by that time we will have many more incidents that could be included. Just a question do you believe that the assaulting of a limo driver should be here? Why not propose a small sentence from the sources you have over stating your intent to reinstate contested paragraphs. -- Moxy (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this needs to go to BLPN. Personally I don't think every time Bieber gets into some type of skirmish we have to copy the event on his bio. But I'll wait for the verdict at BLPN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's at BLPN now. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing in the sources even suggesting flipping the bird, arguing with a papparazo, fainting onstage or being late was controversial or illegal. So they have no place in this section, at least. The dead cameraman only thought Beiber was somehow involved; source makes clear he wasn't.

The others seem relevant, as does the removed Argentina stuff. But the copyright infringement bit should be split from the Anne Frank bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• After all the input from the BLPN talk think its time we bring up the fact the whole section has a problem. The majority thus far believe the whole section should go let alone the new stuff. What do people think is the best way to deal with this....ask for an RfC on the section so more are involved? Although only a few editors believe some of the info is relevant we should get more involved before moving forward. -- Moxy (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Prune it to heck. The stuff in it with SYNTH comments and the like should not even be in a tabloid of any value - so it ought not be here. Ditto preliminary claims about copyright - time enough to put it in if it goes anywhere. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Collect (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that "err on the side of caution" has been implemented due to the conversation at BLPN by a non involved Admin (Nikkimaria). So at this point we need to have a discussion about the section as a whole. Where should this take place here or at the BLPN board? New section here to stay organized? -- Moxy (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent edit by Nikkimaria. I agree. As far as the discussion continuing, whatever the venue someone has to inform BLPN about the choice. I personally prefer BLPN because it is the go-to place for everyone interested about BLP matters and imo it is very visible. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that BLP would be a better place ...we would get more people that are familiar with this type of problem over fans and those that hate him. -- Moxy (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

In order to remove this article from Category:CS1 errors: dates, could someone please change:

• reference # 17 from "2012‐9‐21" to "2012-09-21"
• reference #153 from "2010-10-18T00:00:00+02:00" to "2010-10-18"

Also, could someone please change the redlink Category:Canadian male pop singers to Category:Canadian male singers and Category:Canadian pop singers?

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is the controversy section?

I remember there being a section about the controversies Justin has been involved in, but where has it gone? His public image is filled with negative news reports of him disowning fans, legal issues and recently he egged a neighbour and and his friend has been busted for drugs. why has the section been removed? - SilentDan297 talk 13:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Best practice is to integrate controversial behaviour into the bulk of the prose, so it would be in the various sections of his biography, rather than all split out. We also wouldn't give undue weight to every celebrity tantrum; however, significant events with long-lasting widespread media coverage would be mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it as a way of censorship here, if what he does wrong is being reported in reliable sources then we cant go on like nothing ever happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Any events should have lasting notability not just be tabloid fodder for that week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. The recent discussion at BLPN also reached a similar consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So spinning the bottle would this also go for his Philanthropy and Endorsement ventures? Or how about the guy in the Toronto nightclub who placed the pop star in a chokehold? What makes a story notable here and what doesn't when it comes to his fandom? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Errr, see above? Three editors have shared their opinions - "significant events with long-lasting widespread media coverage" I've removed the chokehold paragraph, BTW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but 100 minor incidents adds up to something more than minor. The article should spend a a bit more time on something, like the arrest in Miami Beach, which may not be all that notable in itself but ought to be featured more simply as an example. At the moment, I think the article is misleading in its minimization of all these incidents. The media coverage of controversial behaviour has reached long-lasting status. This doesn't mean we necessarily need a "controversies" section, of course.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What is needed is a source discussing all these incidents as a whole rather than individually and how his image may have changed because of them these past couple years. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes well this Associated Press story is the sort of thing I am talking about here.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy sections" are the stuff of the National Enquirer -- this is an encyclopedia and not a supermarket tabloid. Collect (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also not a PR platform.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And if you read the current BLP, you will note that it is definitely not a PR platform. But Wikipedia is also not a tabloid. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If the New York Times wrote an overview article on Bieber of comparable length, you think it would look like this? It's not that bad an article, but a lot of text is spent on identifying the many shows he's been on, copies sold, etc. Are readers likely to object that more show appearances need to mentioned or that the article is oddly silent compared to what the media in general has been calling attention to lately? Let's not pretend here that today's developments in Miami were only reported by tabloids.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The NYT is not an encyclopedia. And what does it say? "Below the fold" and only article 2 under Arts. In short, a minor story, and not of major value to the NYT. WaPo? Below the fold, and in their video section, and coverage of bloggers. Encyclopedic? Not very. Collect (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The NYT also doesn't say "Milk was a bad choice!" but this article has that, raising the question of priorities. I just linked, above, to an AP wire carried by WaPo in "National". At issue here is whether Wikipedia is accurately reflective of the median authoritative sources or not. Are you going to exclude the major TV networks in both Canada and the U.S. by calling them tabloid TV?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No -- we follow WP:BLP which means we determine what is of encyclopedic value and what is not of encyclopedic value. We are not a catchall of his favourite breakfast food and TV shows, we must try to produce an article that people 50 years from now will see as being accurate about the person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

re "his favourite breakfast food" see Straw man. At issue here is your insinuation that BLP trumps WP:Neutral point of view. That AP wire I referred you to notes that "He was positioned as clean-cut and charming — even singing for President Barack Obama and his family at Christmas — but problems began to multiply as he got older." You seem to be resolved to keeping this sort of material out, despite the fact it can be presented in an encyclopedic way if done properly. Keep in mind the the primary mandate of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not keep in the dark.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicknamed "The Biebs"

user:Dr.K. reverted my contribution, stating "Google searches are not reliable sources." Fine. Choose a reliable result and then let THAT be the source. Omitting the factual content that I added compromises the completeness of the article. If you, Dr. K, omit anything I add again, I may report you for abuse. Understand? Ssredg (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please add a tidbit about his nickname on this article? (Personal attack removed) Dr.K. didn't like my source. Can someone please add it in such a way that (Personal attack removed) Dr.K. will approve of? Thanks in advance. Ssredg (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Find a couple of what Wikipedia considers reliable sources and we can add it in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, whether a source is considered reliable or not under WP guidelines, it still will not stop (Personal attack removed) editors ((Personal attack removed)) from destroying a contribution based solely on his personal taste. I ref'd my contribution accordingly (with Google search results), so that editor(s) can pick 1 or 2 "reliable" sources (again, subject to editor's tastes) and thus clean up the ref. Omitting this factual contribution, which according to Dr.K. isn't "encyclopaedic" enough (his personal taste, obviously), compromises the accuracy and completeness of the article. I will not - and I'm sure neither will you - allow one (Personal attack removed) editor to keep an article from being accurate and complete, won't we? Again, let's please use common sense here; if WP guidelines dictate that you jump off a cliff, would you? Exactly. Abusive editors should not be tolerated. Ever. Ssredg (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to report me for reverting your poorly-sourced unencyclopaedic trivia. But make sure you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before you direct any more ultimata or personal attacks at your fellow editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please make sure to use your common sense (oh, is that a personal attack now?) before making improper reverts and deletions. Remember, I said "if you..., I may..." In any case, reporting you for your abuse of WP's editing privileges is a proper step to take, last time I checked. And again, I said I may do it. Ssredg (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"If you, Dr. K, omit anything I add again..." Might want to look at WP:BOOMERANG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

NeilN: My contribution required cleanup, not omission. His act of reverting (w/o even the slightest bit of analysis, notice or any sort of systematic process/treatment) may be construed as abuse and thus, will not be tolerated. Ssredg (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

He gave you a reason: "Google searches are not reliable sources." If you cannot provide proper sources, expect to be repeatedly reverted and eventually blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

But this is why we have the talkpage of the article: to discuss and systematically analyse the proposed edit and find ways of including it, if it qualifies, in an appropriate, encyclopaedic manner. There was no way that this edit could be included the way it was initially proposed. First, we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice and say Nicknamed by entertainment media as "the Biebs," and then cite a Google search as proof, because this is vague and worded in a weasel way, and is a classic case of synthesis which is part of original research. We cannot go Googling stuff and then draw conclusions from these Google searches and report them to the article. This is synthesis. Before finding an appropriate way to formulate a sentence to include this nickname in the article, we must answer questions such as: How widespread is this nickname? Do all entertainment media call him that? If not, how many? Is it the majority? How can one establish that? How frequent is the use of the nickname? Did anyone analyse the use of this nickname amongst the media? Someone has to consider these factors before adding an appropriate sentence about the nickname into the article, so that they can find a way to phrase it in a neutral, encyclopaedic way, free from vague weasel words, original research and synthesis or WP:UNDUE issues. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And you didn't ask yourself that either, before reverting. Again, that was your personal taste. If I were to follow your twisted logic, then [Jennifer Lopez]'s nickname j.Lo must be a figment of my imagination and thus not worthy of mention in her article. Use your common sense before hitting the keyboard, OK? Think before you act. Consider cleaning first, rather than reverting. The goal is accuracy and completeness, not personal tastes. Ssredg (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And you didn't ask yourself that either, before reverting. But I did ask myself all these questions before reverting and that is why I reverted. You still have not answered the substance of my arguments and you still continue your personal attacks and crude instructions. There is no commonsense in your original research and synthesis and you should submit edits that are free of problems if you expect other editors not to revert them. And this is not the same as Jennifer Lopez's nickname because her nickname is widely accepted while Bieber's is not. Consider cleaning first, rather than reverting. I have no obligation to clean after your weasel words and synthesis. Rather, the onus is upon you to formulate your edit in a way that would be acceptable for inclusion in the article without original research and synthesis. The goal is accuracy and completeness, not personal tastes. Again, there was nothing accurate or complete with your synthetic edit. And don't confuse your original research with any personal tastes. If you cannot do that, chances are that your edit will be reverted as synthesis WP:SYNTH. I have no interest in pursuing this further since you show no indication of understanding what are the problems with your edit or learning from my explanations. But you do show an unmistakable aptitude for personal attacks. Let me give you a hint: Try to devote some energy in improving your edit, rather than spending all of it attacking other editors. Perhaps then you can come up with an acceptable edit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)