Talk:Justin Bieber/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Tattoos section

Not sure how encyclopaedic a Tattoo section full of quotes is.....seems more suitable for a fan wedsite then here.--Moxy (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As seen here, Seraphim System added the section. Moxy tagged it as trivia. And I removed the section (followup note here). Yes, we include some tattoo material in some Wikipedia celebrity articles, but there is no need whatsoever for a whole tattoo section in this case. Noting that Bieber has many tattoos and naming a few notable ones is enough.

On a side note: Moxy, I altered the original title of this discussion section so that it's clearer. Also, I think you meant "fancruft" instead of "fan cuff." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, Justin Bieber's tattoos have gotten a ton of press coverage and there is nothing inherently non-encyclopedic about it. The fact that there is no similar section in Angelina Jolie's article is not a justification for reverting sourced material. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Replied below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway the fact that this was called "fancruft" shows a definite POV about tattoos being "nonencyclopedic" which is nonsense - tattoos are serious art and a lot of people are interested in it. We are missing a lot of tattoo related articles (even Bang Bang doesn't have one) but that is not a reason to revert an addition to an article just because you have a bias about tattoos. Angelina Jolie's tattoos are less extensive as far as I know, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a section there also if there is content for it. For anyone who gets full body ink tattoo is a major part of their personal life, it shouldn't be removed over some impulsive editorial bias about tattoos being "fancruft" Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Pls try and use better judgment in the future....what we are looking for is information of value. Looking at a few othere edits of your I woukd also suggest not using tabloid news papers....best to simply stay away from tabloid information all together.Moxy (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tabloid newspapers? I used People magazine because it was already used as a source here. It's also entirely non-controversial, he has a lion tattoo and a bear tattoo. Please provide diffs of my "other edits" where I've used "tabloid newspapers". Justin Bieber's tattoos were even covered by CNN. I don't usually edit entertainment articles, so I can remove US Weekly or some other specific source if that is a problem, but I otherwise intend to restore the section. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie is a WP:Featured article, and what you see there on tattoos is how it is done. Her tattoos have been covered by reliable sources as well, but you don't see us dedicating a whole section to them. They are a part of her appearance/public image and they only need a brief mention in the Appearance subsection of her Public image section. Similarly, only a brief mention of Bieber's tattoos are needed in his Public image section; it does not need its own section. It's not a "personal life" issue. It's a "public image" issue. As for this this, if I'm edit warring, you are edit warring. Clearly, you don't want to listen. So I guess I will need to use my handy dandy WP:RfC tactic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is a public image issue, I think it is his personal life. There is no source that says it is a public image issue. I am actually interested in tattoos and I don't think you can just assume that religious tattoos are about public image. It could be moved to the section on his beliefs, though I'm not sure that the bear tattoo has any religious significance, many of them do. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If a celebrity has a Public image section, that is where we typically put tattoo information. And it does not get its own section. Public image sections deal with appearance, style and how the public perceives the public figure. I don't see sources stating that Bieber's tattoos are a "personal life" issue either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I don't know anything about Angelina Jolie's tattoos, and I don't know what the sources say about Jolie's tattoos, but I know multiple sources describe Bieber's tattoos as having religious significance so I considered them part of his personal life. I guess if this article had an appearance section, it would be fine to add it there, but it doesn't.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

And it does not need an "Appearance" section. His appearance material is already covered in the "General" subsection of his Public image section. But, yes, adding the tattoo information to the first paragraph of the "Beliefs and relationships" section would be better than where you currently have it -- as two paragraphs in its own section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justin Bieber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702075432/http://www.entmania.com/2014/04/19/white-house-responds-deport-justin-bieber-petition-refuse-comment/ to http://www.entmania.com/2014/04/19/white-house-responds-deport-justin-bieber-petition-refuse-comment/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Legal issues and controversies" section

Bistymings has been adding to the "Legal issues and controversies" section. Per WP:BLP and WP:Criticism, such sections can be problematic. We should not be adding everything Bieber has been criticized for or got in trouble for. There is a matter of WP:Due weight. For those unfamiliar with WP:Due weight, read it. Notable legal issues and controversies deserve a mention, but not every legal issue or controversy. And the sources should call the matter a controversy before we label it as one. This probably needs to go to the WP:BLP noticeboard. The section has been debated before, as seen at Talk:Justin Bieber/Archive 6. It was cut to a reasonable size and now it just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Taken to the WP:BLP noticeboard. If no one else trims the section, I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION does seem an issue here. My knee-jerk reaction is "trim away". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it was from old copies of the article.....they went back in time and just copy pasted what has been removed over time.--Moxy (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I took it out for the time being while it is under discussion here and at the wp:blpn Govindaharihari (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in the content removed by User:Govindaharihari as violating the BLP policy. They're mostly his featured songs and side work. Although the content about urinating seems trivial but I'm not sure. I don't agree with removing all of it as they are important, properly sourced and should be included. Flooded with them hundreds 16:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• I'd support removal of the content per due weight about the Japanese war shrine, urinating in a mop bucket, Mariah Yeater, telling a joke about black people and the China govt. banning him, it's all irrelevant and it just reeks of scandal mongering and gossipy crap, especially when you see "according to TMZ" in the content. There's also two paragraphs that mention the "egg throwing", which is unnecessary, and also supports the argument that someone has just added back old content, especially the way the paragraphs read with redundant information and choppy editing. Trim the legal issues to the basic facts and also remove the mugshot. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Moxy, Govindaharihari, and Isaidnoway, thanks for weighing in. Moxy, yes. I've been thinking that WP:Socking is going on. I know that there is one past editor who favored this article and would add a bunch of whatever to it. Govindaharihari, thanks for attempting to trim the material. It was restored by Flooded with them hundreds without a solid rationale. Flooded with them hundreds should read WP:VNOTSUFF. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to partially revert myself, removing some from the Legal section. Flooded with them hundreds 10:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Married or engaged?

Are Justin Bieber and Hailey Baldwin actually married or are they merely engaged? Bieber's Wikipedia page says one thing and Baldwin's Wikipedia page says the opposite. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A few news outlets are reporting that they were married in a civil ceremony this week (different from the marriage license they obtained three weeks ago), I assume that there will be verifiable proof soon. TMZ is rarely wrong. DFS (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Both articles should be consistent. I don't know enough about this matter to make any edits. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought TMZ was not supposed too be used as a source..or has that changed now? Bbonds775 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You're correct, that's why I didn't add it to the article with a reference to TMZ. The problem isn't that TMZ is 100% unreliable (by factual standards), it is that their business model is to lean on the side of being occasionally wrong in exchange for usually being first, which makes them unacceptable as a Wikipedia source as a sole source of information. DFS (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

TMZ is able to find birth certificates when they want to yet they can’t seem to publish this so called marriage license which is a public record. That’s why I think it’s dubious. Hailey herself said she’s not married yet. TMZ was the first to report that Justin is pursuing naturalization, and I gave them credit where due.Trillfendi (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"TMZ is able to find birth certificates when they want to yet they can’t seem to publish this so called marriage license which is a public record. That’s why I think it’s dubious." is original research, wouldn't you think? Strikerforce^Talk 20:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There are articles on this website that cite TMZ-sourced birth certificates, believe it or not. Same with marriage licenses, when Blake Lively got married, Wikipedians used her marriage license to determine her birth name. I don’t think public records are original research at all. When Shia LeBeouf got “married”, the County of Las Vegas confirmed in a tweet that he never filed for a marriage license. Original research is going to the government office to get the info yourself.Trillfendi (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You missed my point. You're taking the lack of publication by TMZ to make a conclusion ("That's why I think..."). Strikerforce^Talk 14:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Look, Hailey is the one who said they weren’t married yet, so who really cares what I “think”. Maybe she’s just trying to get the dogs off her trail. If they really married in September there would simply be evidence of it, again, marriage is a public record. TMZ openly admits to paying top dollar for information or photos and clearly has no shame in publishing it. They recently did it when Faith Evans eloped.Trillfendi (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

MarioProtIV, regarding this, you still need to add a WP:Reliable source for it and it should be stated lower in the article. Like I told Moxy and Nil Einne at Talk:Hailey Baldwin, the Hailey Baldwin article has been updated with this CNN source and this People magazine source. Joseph A. Spadaro, DFS and Strikerforce, what do you think about using these sources to confirm the marriage? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

yup! congrats to the young couple!!! --Moxy (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Not here , not yet with such links as those. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, regarding this, I take it you object because all those links show is that Bieber called her his wife on Instagram and that Bieber's mom called her "daughter"? Either way, we need to be consistent with both Wikipedia articles. One shouldn't state that they are married while the other doesn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I am only editing this high profile WP:BLP what is being inserted over there I do not know. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

When I commented, most sources seem to be just relying on the "my wife" comment and most of the the better ones made it clear that's why they were saying so (and they often used carefully language e.g. BBC's "seems to"). While this is somewhat indicative, it's IMO not enough since colloquially people may refer to someone who they aren't married to as their wife depending in the circumstances. With Justin Bieber now specifically say he's a "married man", I'm now leaning to accepting this is good enough. I do agree we should be consistent. Nil Einne (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It is still weakly supported imho but I won't object to the inclusion with the current source. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

His Instagram account is a verified account, as is his mother's Twitter account. With CNN and People picking up those posts and publishing, that is enough for BLP to be met, in my opinion. Support Strikerforce^Talk 15:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, looks good to me. DFS (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

______

References

Future good article renomination

I see this article was once a Good Article nominee and most of the criteria was pretty much met but the review wasn’t done properly. My question is, it ready to head in that direction again? I’m willing to do my part, obviously, I’m just trying to gauge if it is worth it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not close to WP:GA level. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Justin Bieber for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Justin Bieber is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

New picture

File:LP 9308422.jpg

File:LP 9308422.jpg

There's a new free to use picture of Justin Bieber in 2019 avaiable, uploaded by the owner. 8eatle (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Where? —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If you got to the media for Justin Bieber, you will come across a new picture him in a beanie hat. 8eatle (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Instead of sending us on an easter-egg hunt do you think you could just give a url link, preferably one that shows the compatible, free license? -- Begoon 17:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LP_9308422.jpg 8eatle (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, so it's at Commons. I'm not sure why the EXIF data contains "youtube.com/CasadosConHijosHD"? Anyway, assuming the licensing is ok, the question I suppose is does anyone think it would be a good illustration for a particular part of this article? -- Begoon 18:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You should use it as the lead picture, considering the current one is 4 years old. 8eatle (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave that for other editors to decide. Firstly it would need cropping, secondly the person behind him then becomes a bit of a distraction, and, to me, his facial expression looks a bit 'odd', but let's see what the consensus is. Image work is my 'thing' so if you do get a consensus and any editing/cropping etc is required that you think is a bit difficult feel free to 'ping' me. Cheers. -- Begoon 11:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I've cropped the image and made some adjustments: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_in_2019_(crop).jpg

File:Justin Bieber in 2019 (crop).jpg

Crop

I won't change it until you've actually decided, but here it is. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 03:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

R&B

The article says he INCORPORATES ELEMENTS of R&B and that his music is MAINLY pop. Stop adding R&B, he is not an R&B singer, he just uses elements its not the same thing Dojazervas (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It could definitely be said that he is an R&B singer. There are a number of sources to back that up, for example, see this article which says how Beiber always incorporated elements of R&B, but that Changes secured his status as a "R&B artist". One of his biographies is called Justin Bieber: Pop and R&B Idol. It would make sense for R&B to be in his genres in addition to pop. Any opinions?--HillelFrei^{• talk •} 15:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I agree it should be added now because those sources explicitly state that he is an R&B artist. Dojazervas (talk) 12:03 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Justin Bieber

-- CptViraj () 08:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• JustinBieberInConcert.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Lyme disease

ScienceFlyer (talk · contribs), regarding this? What do you mean by claiming that there are no reliable sources for Bieber having Lyme disease? Those are WP:Reliable sources. WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are not needed for this. And I'm not sure what type of high-quality sources you are expecting to report on Bieber having Lyme disease. Academic sources are not going to take the time to report on this.

I'll alert the WP:BLP noticeboard to this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This biography says that Bieber announced a diagnosis, which is true. In addition to NBC, it was also reported by the BBC, USA Today, Forbes and CNN. I see no good reason to remove it. As for ScienceFlyer's criticism of two physicians, they are not mentioned in the news coverage and therefore, that criticism is not relevant to this specific matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) Cullen328 (talk · contribs) All of the reports of alleged "Lyme" and "chronic mono" (not infectious mononucleosis) are sourced from Bieber himself, generally from a now-deleted instagram post and the documentary he produced. I wonder why the instagram post was deleted.

As disclosed in Bieber's documentary, his doctors are Daniel Amen and Erica Lehman, both of whom have no infectious disease credentials and have beliefs that are contrary to mainstream medical science. Bieber has a history of promoting pseudoscientific health fads, including cupping and making false claims about diets affecting anxiety and depression. And when a doctor politely corrected Bieber, he told the doctor to F- off. Chronic Lyme and false Epstein-Barr diagnoses are pseudoscientific health fads. His claims that they caused his depression are like Jenny McCarthy's claims that vaccines caused her son's autism in that they are neither reliable nor supported by science. Regardless of the above, since Lyme disease is a highly geographically-restricted, easily treated infection, a real case likely wouldn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. Similarly, most of us are exposed to Epstein-Barr at some point in our lives, so why should it be included? ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be included because Bieber announced it and many reliable sources ran stories on it, and his perceptions of his health are part of his life story. He said it is important and therefore it deserves a mention. We are not stating in Wikipedia's voice that these health claims are true, but rather that they have been reported by reliable sources. The article can certainly also report on his advocacy of unorthodox health beliefs as reported by reliable sources. But unless reliable sources make a direct connection between the Lyme disease claim and doctors Amen and Lehman, then neither can Wikipedia. That would be synthesis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ScienceFlyer, Wikipedia's role is to report what reliable sources say, not to evaluate the actual claims. In this case, the sources are reliable, so unless they post a retraction, we should keep the information that is sourced to them. We shouldn't ignore them because that would not be giving them due weight. Deciding whether the articles are accurate or not would be original research on our part, which is not the role of Wikipedia. However, we can also cover articles like that refer to Justin Bieber as a recipient of alternative treatments that aren't backed by science. Wikipedia shouldn't be censored but should rather show the controversy.

Gbear605 (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Per above arguments, I re-added the material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Expanding and expanding this article

Bistymings, as seen here and here, you can obviously remove my posts from your talk page as much as you want to. That is allowed per WP:TALK. But if you continue to expand this article with anything and everything, do not be surprised when you are reverted. What I stated about WP:DIARY and WP:NOTEVERYTHING stands. And WP:Edit warring will not work in your favor if you go the edit warring route. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Justin Bieber at the 2015 MTV EMAs.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of information about new albums.

The new albums of the artist such as 'Justice-deluxe edition' and 'Freedom', should be added to the article. Devthaker1910 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist"

Is "singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist" really the best wording to reflect what Bieber is most notable for in the opening sentence? Articles for male artists with similar brands to Bieber—Shawn Mendes and Harry Styles—go with "singer and songwriter", which is what would probably be most appropriate here. Thoughts?--NØ 12:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

AWikiGenius, since you're edit warring to restore the wording in question, care to weigh in?--NØ 16:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I clearly explained everything I had to in here, You were also in that discussion. Please read the responses if you haven't already and please feel free to include any of your references and sources if you have any to back up your claims.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  16:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Very well, then. Here's what I can find from an unbiased skim on Google (also factoring in the sources in the discussion you linked, for fairness):

• Option A: singer -- BBC, GQ, UPI, Indian Express, NME, Republic World, NY Daily News
• Option B: singer, songwriter -- The Canadian Encyclopedia, Forbes
• Option C: singer-songwriter -- Crunchbase (questionable reliability?), WION, ANI News, Zee5, MSN, NewsRoom Post
• Option D: singer, songwriter and multi-instrumentalist -- News18, The Nation, Yahoo
• Option E: singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist -- The Independent Singapore

Conclusion:"singer-songwriter" is fine and a fairly commonly used descriptor for Bieber among secondary sources. "Multi-instrumentalist", on the other hand, is found in some sources but nowhere near the most common descriptor used to describe Bieber. It should be omitted from the first sentence of this (and all Bieber-related) article(s).--NØ 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the singer-songwriter definition from The Oxford, Google also claims Justin Bieber as a "Canadian singer-songwriter" , You can see it just below his name after a quick google search and even while you type in the words "Justin Bieber" on the Google search box. I don't think there are any other more reliable sources than Oxford and Google .

Sources claiming Justin Bieber as a "singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist" = Now Music, Tupaki, The Independent, National Today, Independent SG, Music Festival Wizard.

More sources claiming Justin Bieber as the "multi-instrumentalist" = Hollywood Reporter, Yahoo, YouTube Music, Apple Music, Tube Filter, News 18, Combster, Vivid Seats, The Nation Online, Tune Genie, Jayuzumi, IWM Buzz, Zoom, Kiddle.

I can give you more sources if you want, but I think it's more than enough.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  19:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Those are a lot of sources indeed, but almost none are WP:RS. I was trying to avoid it but it seems an RfC will be necessary. Regards.—NØ 19:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Describing Bieber

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus that Option A ("a Canadian singer") is the best way to describe Bieber in the first sentence of the article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

---

How should Bieber be described in the opening sentence?

• A: a Canadian singer
• B: a Canadian singer and songwriter
• C: a Canadian singer-songwriter
• D: a Canadian singer and multi-instrumentalist
• E: a Canadian singer, songwriter and multi-instrumentalist
• F: a Canadian singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist

Please vote for your preferred wording in the sub-section below with an optional brief comment, but do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion.--NØ 08:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• A The article mentions his singing several times and it is how I, a non-fan, know him. The article says (once) he learned "to play the piano, drums, guitar, and trumpet" as a kid, and that he "briefly played the drums" in public once, but that doesn't make him an instrumentalist. The article says absolutely nothing about him being a songwriter, except in the current opening sentence and the infobox, so apparently it's not a thing. All that's left for me to conclude is that he's a singer (who once learned how to play a few instruments, to some unknown extent). A caveat to my comments here: I did my best to carefully scan through the article, but did not read it word-for-word, as I would for enjoyment or education. I'm guessing that I must have missed something, because otherwise the RfC and discussion above it don't make much sense. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• B or C: Bieber has writing credits on several of his own singles and that should be acknowledged in the lead. I'd strike "multi-instrumentalist" because aside from his vocals, his only credits on his albums are executive production, one simply production, and drumming on the song "Drummer Boy", which is hardly reflective of the usual expectation set by the term. Tangential: As for User:JohnFromPinckney's "The article says absolutely nothing about him being a songwriter", if that is indeed the case then the article should be updated to reflect the artist's various songwriting credits. QuietHere (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @QuietHere: Singer-songwriter is a combination of singer, songwriter and multi-instrumentalist, so it doesn't make sense why you support C (singer-songwriter), but you oppose multi-instrumentalist being added, when singer-songwriter includes multi-instrumentalist. In light of this, could you please clarify where you stand on this? Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Doggy54321: Wiktionary's own definition of "singer-songwriter" says "A musician who both sings and composes, especially when recording or performing their own compositions," and that for "multi-instrumentalist" says "Someone who plays more than one musical instrument." The former definition makes no mention of what instruments the artist is playing (The WP article for singer-songwriter says "sometimes instrumentalist" but that's it), the latter says nothing about whether the artist is also a writer/composer of what they're playing. I don't know where you've gotten this idea of one meaning the other, as far as I've always been aware they are two distinct terms. That's what I based my vote on. QuietHere (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @QuietHere: I got my current understanding from an experienced editor, so maybe it's a case of broken telephone, but, looking at people who are described as singer-songwriters, they seem to fit my description. Adele, for example, is listed as a singer-songwriter, and she sings, writes and plays instruments. Same with Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
        • My two cents: I presume "multi-instrumentalist" to be separate and not included under "singer-songwriter", except to the extent that, while writing a song, such a person might use the piano or guitar. Stevie Wonder is my idea of a multi-instrumentalist, in addition to being a singer-songwriter; there are some recorded songs where he plays all the instruments. His article says he "is an American singer, songwriter, musician and record producer", BTW. I'm with QuietHere: they seem like completely separable terms. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• A. It's how he's most commonly described in RS. And as JohnFromPinckney says, his songwriting isn't mentioned anywhere in the body. If it's not even important enough to mention anywhere in the body of the article, it certainly doesn't merit inclusion in the very first sentence. Colin M (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• A, because that is what he does mostly. All the rest is fluff.--Droid I am (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• A: only one that makes sense. He doesn't qualify as a multi-instrumentalist (per JFP's comment), so C, D, E and F are off the table, as singer-songwriter includes multi-instrumentalist. Now, I see little to no mention about Bieber's songwriting in the article. For me to support B, the article needs to be expanded so that Bieber's singing career and Bieber's songwriting career are around the same size, without adding puffery/irrelevant sentences. For example, at Ariana Grande, I refrained from supporting songwriter/singer-songwriter in the lead sentence as those professions were not as detailed as her singing and acting careers. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• A He only qualify as that.Sea Ane (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• A Far and away what he's best known for, which is all the lead sentence should describe. He can be other things too but that's not necessarily first sentence material.LM2000 (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• F : Google describes Justin Bieber as a "Canadian singer-songwriter" , You can see it just below his name after a quick google search and even while you type in the words "Justin Bieber" on the Google search box.
  According to the "singer-songwriter" definition from The Oxford, a "singer-songwriter" is "a person who sings and writes popular songs, especially professionally" which Justin Bieber has been doing for over a decade now, I don't think there are any other more reliable sources than Oxford and Google .
  
  But if anyone feels like it's not reliable enough then here are some more sources mentioning Justin Bieber as a "singer-songwriter"

Detailed analyses of sources presented. ——Serial 11:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
= Forbes , NBC , Variety , National Today , Microsoft News , News Break , PM Studio , Hello Magazine , New Indian Express , Zee Business , Daily Record , Celebrity Networth , First Post , Today , WION News , The Free Press Journal , Apple TV , Vulture , Crunch Base , Alamy , Report Door , Forbes , Devdiscourse , The News International , The Jakarta Post , Kelvin Okafor Art , Pay Check , Agefotostock , Nine / Honey , Album Of The Year , The Economic Times , Shorty Awards , World History Project , The Famous People , Lonely Planet , ANI News , Zee 5 , News Room Post . Furthermore, Sources claiming Justin Bieber as both the "singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist" = Now Music , Tupaki , The Independent , National Today , Independent SG , Music Festival Wizard . More sources claiming Justin Bieber as the "multi-instrumentalist" = Yahoo , YouTube Music , Apple Music , Hollywood Reporter , Tube Filter , News 18 , Combster , Vivid Seats , Kiddle , The Nation Online , Tune Genie , Jayuzumi , IWM Buzz , Zoom Entertainment , Tokyo Shakaijin , News World Wide Coverage , MLive News , Owlapps , Entertainment.ie Justin Bieber was given the title of "multi-instrumentalist" at a very young age, considering he was a self-taught instrumentalist playing the Piano, Guitar, Drums, Bongo, Trumpet, djembe, Congas while singing on the sidewalk to earn some money for his family, playing full drums since he was two years old. We can find new news sources and we can still find the old news sources giving him the title "multi-instrumentalist" dating as back as 2009 ( 2009 AD - Source 1 and 11 Years Ago - Source 2 ). Here is an MTV News source talking about it in elaborate with multiple video clips of him playing the Piano, Guitar, Congo, Drums and other instruments. Here are some Video Clips of him playing different instruments from a tiny little kid to an adult : Video of Bieber playing the Drums as a Kid , Video of Bieber playing Keyboard as a Kid , Video of Bieber Playing Guitar Riffs, Drums and Beatboxing as a Kid , Video of Bieber playing the Guitar and Singing as a Kid , Video of Bieber playing djembe as a Kid , Video of Bieber playing the Guitar and Singing as a Kid , Video of Bieber playing the Drums as a Kid , Compilation Video of Bieber playing different instruments as a Tiny Kid , Video of Bieber playing Drum Solo in 2015 , Video of Bieber playing the Bongo , Video of Bieber playing the Drums in Purpose Tour Concert , Video of Bieber creating new music using Keyboard , Video of Bieber playing Piano while Singing in 2020 , Video of Bieber playing Drums in 2021 , Video of Bieber playing Keyboard while Singing in 2021 <be>

If Justin Bieber is doing this as a profession for over a decade now and is also backed up by hundreds of sources then I don't see any reason not to include it.
Also, Bieber being a multi-instrumentalist was one of the main reasons behind his discovery on Youtube and selection by his Manager, which resulted in what he is now, which I think is a very big part of his profession and his life and should not be excluded out.

And if we were to go along with some of the comments made in this "RfC" then we would have to change every single Artist's article page accordingly and make a new consensus for every artist's page consistently because we can see other artists such as Meghan Trainor, Harry Styles, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, Eminem and all of the other artists have other talents mentioned in their first sentence aside their main profession and aside what they are popularly known for. So, if one artist is able to have their talents included in their lead section then so be it on all of the artist's articles consistently. But if not then let's change all of the other Artist's articles as well accordingly with consistency.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  06:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Meghan Trainor and Katy Perry have both written (or co-written) many songs for other notable artists, which is a strong indicator that their songwriting is noteworthy. But most importantly, their writing is mentioned throughout their respective articles. Just ctrl+f for "wrote" or "written" (then compare with Justin Bieber). I'm not as familiar with the other examples, but WP:OTHER is not a great argument here. We have a clear guideline on this question at MOS:ROLEBIO. Colin M (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment : Why is the RfC quoted as "vote" with "an optional brief comment"? It completely goes against these Consensus and RfC Policies :

--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  06:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• A Per commentary above, if his songwriting isn't even significant enough to be in the body of the article, it certainly shouldn't be in the lede. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• A - I can now declare my preference for option A per all of the insightful arguments offered in favor of it. This is the wording reliable sources use most often and Bieber definitely doesn't fit even Wikipedia's own definition of singer-songwriter. His last single, "Anyone", for example, is a Camila Cabello hand me down.--NØ 14:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• A per the above discussion. He is best known as a singer, the majority of sources refer to him as such, and listing him as a songwriter or instrumentalist alongside "singer" implies there is sourcing describing him as such to a similar degree as there is for "singer". The lead should reflect the defining characteristics of a person, much like categories are supposed to; to that end I would also argue he should not be in the "guitarist" categories either. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• A He is primarily known as being a singer. Songwriter and multi-instrumentalist can probably stay in the infobox (provided that they're both reliably sourced in the body of the article, that is); similar to how Beyoncé's lead sentence says "American singer and actress", but the infobox lists more under Occupations. Some1 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC) added, Some1 (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. The infobox isn't just a place we can put crumbs we have swept up off the floor and don't know where else to put it. All of the information in an infobox should be mentioned and reliably sourced in the article. "Songwriter", at least, doesn't currently fall into that category. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended comments

@AWikiGenius I am sure the administrator who assesses the discussion and closes it will be well-versed with the related policies. Opening statements of RfCs should be as neutrally worded as possible, which is what was done here. And this type of meltdown is exactly what I was trying to discourage with the comment about not bludgeoning the discussion, but here we are...--NØ 06:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am just complying with the policy of Consensus and RfC and making sure that every RfC and consensus building is according to the clearly stated policies. The very clearly stated RfC and Consensus Policies encourages discussions and inclusion of sources, I mean that's the whole purpose behind an RfC and Consensus building. Also the BLUDGEON Policy clearly states that Bludgeon is when "the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". The Bludgeon Policy also clearly states that "Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached at Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times to answer questions or concerns within a conversation is perfectly acceptable." Those two were my first ever comment on this RfC. And, this was not one of the RfC where a brief answer was sufficient, sources were needed. And this particular RfC's result could change every Artist's article page accordingly. Every long comment is not Bludgeon, According to the Bludgeon policy, I am not "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people" I hope that we all can agree to move according to the policies, and encourage discussions with the inclusion of sources rather than discouraging it and base the articles according to the sources rather than personal opinions and uphold every artist's article consistently. Thank You. Kind Regards. ❤
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  07:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

In future, User:AWikiGenius, please try to be more judicious in your use of bold; it might help occasionally as mini-headings to format complex comments, but you don't need to bold the links in the text you add. I'm not so happy with the massive quantity of text, either, but that seems to stem at least in part from a misunderstanding of the question here.

The question is what should be in the lead, which is supposed to be "a summary of [an article's] most important contents". Since the article doesn't say much about anything except his singing, my argument (above) is that "singer" is all we can put in the lead. Your arguments about all his other qualifications may be valid for the article, but as it stands now, not for the lead.

Also, your first sentence about Google seems to claim we should say "singer-songwriter", although you then argue for "multi-instrumentalist". But I believe the Justin Bieber as a "Canadian singer-songwriter" text comes from us, that is, from Wikipedia's short description, which says exactly that. So a "google says" argument isn't very persuasive. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry if the bold texts were not properly maintained. And, I made very thorough research before any of my comment in this RfC, Google's "Canadian singer-songwriter" description about Justin Bieber is not based on Wikipedia's short description. Here's an example, Taylor Swift is described as an "American singer" by Google but Wikipedia's short description on the Taylor Swift Article is "American singer-songwriter". It's the same with all the other Wikipedia articles. Please feel free to confirm and check with other articles. And if "the article doesn't say much about anything except his singing" as you mentioned then the article should be properly updated according to the time and sources, and not the other way around to keep some of the article's section outdated because the whole of the article is outdated as well. And I provided the sources for "multi-instrumentalist" because we can see other artists such as Meghan Trainor, Harry Styles, Katy Perry, Ed Sheeran, Eminem have other talents mentioned in their first sentence aside their main profession and what they are popularly known for. So, if one artist is able to have their talents included in their lead section then so be it on all of the artist's articles. But if not then let's change all of the other Artist's articles as well accordingly with consistency. Also, Bieber being a multi-instrumentalist was one of the main reasons behind his discovery on Youtube and selection by his Manager, which resulted in what he is now, which I think is a very big part of his profession and his life and should not be excluded out. I have made my point and you have made yours. I am not here to argue with anyone. The sources are there, now it's all upon the respective administrators to decide the proper result which will also reflect on all of the artist's Article page accordingly. Thank you.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  08:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a one-size-fits-all discussion, it is only about Justin Bieber. Nothing determined here will "reflect on all of the artist's Article page accordingly" just because you arbitrarily chose to mention them.--NØ 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's called a consensus for a reason. According to the comments on this RfC, the reasons remain the same for all the artists. I just mentioned the inaccuracies. Wikipedia must be consistent on its consensus. It's not up to you or me to decide. If a new RfC and consensus is necessary then so be it. I'm sure the administrators will be non-biased and will choose the result for the better of Wikipedia. Please try to maintain the same mindset for all of the other artists consistently without any systemic bias for your favourites or prefer one artist over the other. We are all here to make Wikipedia accurate, consistent and a better place. Thank You.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  09:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, this is about how to describe Bieber (see title: "Describing Bieber"). So no, nothing discussed here will impact any other article.--NØ 09:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that it may be difficult when it involves your favourite artist, but Please try to be non-biased about this and think for Wikipedia's betterment and consistency. You repeating the same thing, again and again, will not change anything. And Like I said as well If a new RfC and consensus is necessary then so be it. I'm sure the administrators will be non-biased and will choose the result for the better of Wikipedia. Please try to maintain the same mindset for all of the other artists consistently without any systemic bias for your favourites or prefer one artist over the other. I hope we can uphold every artist's article consistently. Regards
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  09:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"If a new RfC and consensus is necessary then so be it". It will be, good luck with that. If I see any edit warring on the articles you linked to make a WP:POINT in the next few days, I will be forced to discuss your behaviour at the administrators noticeboard.--NØ 09:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Why good luck? It's not up to me or you, it's up to the administrators and the Wikipedia Policies. Anyway, Thank You, you too. ❤ And, How are RfC and consensus making a point? It should also be your main concern as a Wikipedia Editor. I will uphold my duty as a Wikipedia Editor and I encourage you to do the same. Cheers
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  10:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@AWikiGenius: Please read WP:TLDR before commenting on this RfC further. It's very hard to follow this discussion when you have walls of text everywhere, not to mention the constant boldface and blue links in the first couple responses from you (which I now see you have stopped, thank you for that). Please try to be concise, and avoid unnecessary detail. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"Prince of Pop"

...should not be in the lead, as thats not a common nickname of his ---FMSky (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. How many Prince of Pops have there been now? TruthGuardians (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

Justin Bieber is an American singer 49.15.189.156 (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Sirdog (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the lead include "Prince of Pop" as Bieber's nickname?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to not include the nickname. FMSky (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

---

FMSky (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Query - to what extent would its inclusion reflect what is in reliable sources? Are there multiple reliable sources that use this nickname? Was the use of this nickname sustained over time, or a once-off use in relation to a particular event? St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• No. The sources used there do not indicate he is widely referred to as that; it is just the headline of one article in Billboard. (I would also remove the rest of the sentence with it; it is rather puffy and the sources used don't really support the rest of the claims in it either.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• No The lede is to describe why a subject is most notable. Unlike King of Rock (Elvis Presley) and King of Pop (Michael Jackson), I do not think this nickname is strongly associated with Bieber's notability.LM2000 (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) - not unless much better sourcing can be found that this is a 'stock' nickname. The single use on billboard seems like a direct play on words based on Beiber imitating Jackson during the interview anyway. So that's 1 minus 1 'natural' uses on the strength of present sources! Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• No, as the nickname is not widely used, only being used one time by one magazine. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Changing my !vote to Yes, per Isaidnoway's 17 sources that call Bieber the Prince of Pop. I also encourage Seraphimblade, LM2000, Pincrete and PraiseVivec to reconsider in light of this new information, due to the fact that their justifications for their !votes were that there were not enough sources. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it. A press release (Justin Bieber’s Label Dubs Him ‘Prince of Pop’ ) followed by very occasional use of the 'nickname' or 'a prince' used to supplement the real name, never on their own. Elvis or Aretha or Sinatra never needed to have their nicknames explained by being followed by their real names. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The RfC question asked was - Should the lead include "Prince of Pop" as Bieber's nickname? What the lead currently says - Often referred to as the "Prince of Pop". I believe that reliable sources do often refer to him as the Prince of Pop, and have throughout the years. Besides Billboard and the ABC News source, these all pre-date the 2013 press release. And so what if his nickname is followed by his real name (or vice versa), that's not a valid reason to ignore multiple reliable sources that refer to him as the prince of pop. Here and below, I've presented 30 sources, ranging from 2010 to August 6, 2021, how many is enough? (because there is gobs more) Isaidnoway (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

2010 the certified Prince of Pop uses up to 3% of Twitter's server infrastructure at any given time

2010 16-year-old prince of pop

2010 they’re off to meet the prince of pop

2011 Has the future Mrs. Bieber been taking guidance from her prince-of-pop boyfriend

2011 Justin Bieber, the reigning Prince of Pop, and Ozzy Osbourne, the legendary Prince of Darkness, have joined forces in the name of good

2012 one thing’s for sure the Prince of Pop, is definitely growing up.

2012 He’s already the prince of pop,

2012 Justin Bieber is still the reigning prince of pop.

2012 Justin Bieber is commonly called the new Prince of Pop

2012 Yes, the Prince of Pop has added a crown on his right chest.

2012 the prince of pop previews one of the pouty looks that complete the portfolio inside

2012 Justin has been known for being the Prince of Pop since 2009

2012 If Bieber, Prince of Pop, and the Queen of Pop ever got together

• No - Simply not enough sources use the expression about him to warrant its inclusion. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - I'm going to buck the trend here and say yes, there is enough sustained coverage to warrant its inclusion. A handful of sources very easily found (there's a lot more), with a GQ source from just a few days ago. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

SOURCES

• 2012 prince of pop
• 2013 “the Prince of Pop” (press release)
• 2013 prince of pop
• 2013 prince of pop
• 2015 Prince of Pop
• 2015 Prince of Pop
• 2016 Prince of Pop
• 2016 Price of Pop
• 2017 Prince of Pop
• 2017 Pop prince
• 2017 prince of pop
• 2019 this title had pretty much been Justin's
• 2019 Prince of Pop
• 2019 Justin Bieber is already the reigning Prince of Pop
• 2021 Prince of Pop
• 2021 pop prince
• August 6, 2021 prince of pop

• No - Though he is described by a handful of sources as the "Prince of Pop", this is not how we should describe him in the lead. A mention in the body is adequate but nothing more. He has several nicknames and is not unanimously known as the "Prince of Pop". Meatsgains^(talk) 00:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• No. It doesn't mean anything to most people. The lead is for brief understanding/identification of the subject, not low-key puffery. When you think of the "King of Pop" Michael Jackson probably comes to mind. I think it's too early in his career/life for a nickname to be equal to "Justin Bieber" and most people outside of pop music fans probably wouldn't associate that title with him, so it would be odd to mention it. How many articles might have "Prince of Pop" in the lead? This would be confusing to readers. Certainly not in the lead, but in a section seems okay with sources. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• No - Inclusion at Honorific nicknames in popular music is sufficient. And as you can see there, many people have been claimed this title over the years.--NØ 03:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - I acknowledge a fair point made by Heartfox in saying that Michael Jackson is probably the musician that comes to mind when thinking of "King of Pop". But viewing this rationally, Justin Bieber is not being compared to Michael Jackson in any manner, nor to any other artist that has a title associated with them. This is an "Honorific" nickname and not meant to stir up a debate about whether he/she deserves to be referred to it. Sorry if this is news for some, but he has had an impact on the industry that only a handful are able to do in the 21st century, for which he has accumulated success and significant media attention over the last 10-12 years. Isaidnoway's sources provided above are substantive enough to mention the title that he is honoured with, in the lead. --Beemer03 (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• No - The title "Prince of pop" have been used for so many different artist and he is not most identified by that. It should be mentioned in the section but not the lead. Sea Ane (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• No. There are sources calling him the "prince of pop", just as there are calling Justin Timberlake that, but the point of a WP:LEAD is to summarise an article's most important aspects. Chucking "prince of pop" into google news, for a random reference point, brings up articles about many different pop artists, the majority of which aren't Bieber; this phrase sometimes used to describe Bieber (and other pop artists) really just isn't a particularly important aspect of Bieber's notability. The appearance it has in the section on his public image seems sufficient to me. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes From the sources shared above, it clearly shows that there is enough coverage to warrant its inclusion and as user Beemer03 mentioned, Bieber has made quite an impact in the industry. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Depends -- Inclined to include based on sources listed above, but how it is mentioned must be subtly crafted. Inclined to either not include or minimize significance because of arguments such as those by Sea Ane. It appears to be a name created for marketing by the record label.[1]. If it is acknowledged that he is not the only performer who has tried to use the title for marketing purposes and then it was adopted at least by some, then might be acceptable. It would be interesting to see if he tried to trademark or copyright the term, and if so, how that went. Please also consider our consistency with: Honorific nicknames in popular music which mentions Bieber but not Mendes [2] (also these google). Responding to [3]. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Probably not I agree with some of the comments made above; different musicians will be called the "Prince of Pop" over time; Bieber is not widely known by the nickname so it doesn't belong in the lead. A mention in the body of the article is sufficient. Some1 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal issues and controversies

Why is "Legal issues and controversies" a subsection of "Personal life" and not an independent section? Whether it is about personal life or not, legal issues and controversies are a separate topic and should not be hidden under a topic such as personal life. RonnieSingh (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The top

It should all be short and briefly, and only the important things should be mentioned. I don't see it on here. Mirrored7 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Lalilac (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)== Legal issues and controversies ==

On December 5, 2021, Justin Bieber ignored calls for a boycott and sang in Saudi Arabia. The wife of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist murdered in Turkey under the orders of King Mohammed bin Salman known as MBS, had called on him to send a strong message to the Saudi dictatorship by canceling his concert. Many associations remind him of the numerous liberticidal laws of this country towards women (Loujain Al-Hathloul), the freedom of thought and expression (Raif Badawi), the LGBT+ community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalilac (talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021

106.214.76.72 (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Justin Beiber was born in Patna, India

He is gay and I am justin Biebers chachera bhai

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization ^Talk 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

He is counted among the most famous personalities of the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:488:68FE:E07:14E0:A6A5:57F4 (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): R.shumba.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

Justin Bieber lived with FaZe clan for a little bit Brightonpoo (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Good for them. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead

The lead seems pretty bloated and I believe that it needs a cut down/clean up. Several artists from Bieber's era, such as Taylor Swift and Drake (musician), have a pretty condensed lead in comparison which I believe is also suitable for Bieber's page. Marlborozmoker (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

Change by adding word "how", from "He cancelled concerts and appearances due to the condition and said he does not know long it will take for him to recover." to "He cancelled concerts and appearances due to the condition and said he does not know how long it will take for him to recover." 58.179.19.198 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

change the second sentence. he has no influence and is not "genre-melding musicianship" 95.248.216.98 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh

Justin Drew Bieber (/biːbər/ BEE-bər; born March 1, 1994)[1][2] is a Canadian singer. Bieber is widely recognized for his genre-melding musicianship and has played an influential role in modern-day popular music.[3] He was discovered by American record executive Scooter Braun and signed with RBMG Records in 2008, gaining recognition with the release of his debut seven-track EP My World (2009) and soon establishing himself as a teen idol. 2001:448A:50E0:C595:2812:4299:23DD:E6BD (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Mariah Yeater?

The California woman who (allegedly) had Bieber’s child back in 2011. She was all over the news (even appearing above Carey in Google search suggestions for “Mariah”) for a good month then the news abruptly stopped and she was never heard from again despite Bieber’s rep saying that they planned to go after her for making false claims once they proved that Bieber wasn’t the father and that her dropping her paternity suit didn’t change a thing. And you get warned for trying to post about her on his Wiki page. I know SOMEONE on here knows what ended up happening there/what she is up to now. 12.228.217.214 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTGOSSIP (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)