Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 7

Trivia, tabloid, gossip should be avoided in this article
"Spears has been the subject of media scrutiny from a series of controversial behavior in public" The person who wrote this article as evidenced by the captioned mastery of grammar and diction is EXACTLY why Brittany Spears is what she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisum.ili.dilm (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. You are editing an article of a biography of the singer Britney Spears. Please remember that informations that you are intending to add into the article has encyclopedic merit. This is wikipedia, not Entertainment Tonight. Trivia, tabloid and the latest gossips are best to be avoided in this article. Just imagine yourself doing a school assignment on Britney Spears, the teacher is not going to care who she slept with. So please make sure any information that you wish to add is noteworthy and has encyclopedic merit. Besides, I've just nominated this article for GA. Let's hope it goes well. Oidia (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention. Fansites and forums are not reliable sources and should never be used for referencing. Also a lot of the times, "gossip magazines" are not very reliable for information either. Generally speaking, ones like Time magazine and People magazine are reliable. But ones like Who magazine or Famous magazine or NW magazine are not that reliable. Oidia (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When I was at the supermarket today, just about all the "scandal sheet" magazines at the checkout seemed to be cover-featuring the alleged conflicts and controversies involving Britney and her kids. *Dan T.* 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A court has ordered pop singer Britney Spears to give up custody of her children effective Wednesday at noon, according to court papers. Someone needs to add that, since the page is locked, i can't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.255.217 (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed this sentence because it was biased and possibly untrue : —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.100.242 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam
Please can someone remove the "You can check out some great pictures of her working on her latest music video on www.24forums.com" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * done and done. Oidia (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

GRAMMAR! Please read.
Large grammar and spelling mistakes are usually easy to identify when browsing an article, but my biggest pet peeve is quotations. It is ALWAYS correct to include a period inside of a quotation unless it is followed by a parenthetical citation. This is true in academia, in fiction, in memoirs - its a universal law of writing. However, Wikipedians often write:

Spears said, "I love my babies".

As opposed to

Spears said, "I love my babies."

Since all of our citations are reference notes, not parenthetical, in any and every case the period should rest inside of the quotations. Now, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so it could be there's an article on this I'm missing out on. If so, please direct me to the rule that says how to use periods in quotations. But if not, PLEASE start fixing these mistakes because they look very unprofessional. Any of you who have gone through at least high school should be aware of this anyway! Thanks. --Circasix 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just went and browsed through 3 celebrity feature articles. And all of those articles have both ." and ". in the end of sentences. So it's probably not that important to achieve consistency throughout the article. Although to my knowledge, Spears said "I love my 2 sons".(ref) is the correct format. Oidia (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't judge our articles by others. Just because they aren't grammatically correct doesn't mean we can't be. And for the record, unless there's a Wikipedia policy stating otherwise, the period inside the quotations is correct. Just Google it and you'll see! Thanks for understanding. :) I look forward to a grammatically improved article to help us achieve FA status! :) --Circasix 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Have fun :) Oidia (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha... per this website (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm), it looks like the confusion might be a continental thing. So Spears' favorite song is "I'm A Slave 4 U." is just as correct as Spears' favorite song is "I'm a Slave 4 U". However, it would be definitely incorrect to write Spears said, "I love my babies". --Circasix 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know why. "I'm A Slave 4 U" is a NAME of a song. Hence why the full stop comes after the close speech marks. All names have full stops after the speech mark. Also on wikipedia it's popular to italicise names. And when someone makes a statement, it's a quote so that's why the full stop is inside the speech marks. Oidia (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm glad I could help you figure that out. --Circasix 05:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * US style is to always put the period (full stop) before the quotation mark, whether the quote is a full sentence or a single word. However, I believe the Wikipedia style book recommends logical quoting, in which the period is included within the quotation only if it is logically part of the quotation.  In other words, if the quote includes the period, the period goes inside the quotation marks (and subsumes the period for the enclosing sentence).  Otherwise, the only period comes after the quotation mark.  Thus, for example, hypothetically:


 * Spears considers Federline her "bête noire".


 * but


 * Spears said, "Kevin is and always will be my bête noire."


 * That is, assuming she would use a term like "bête noire". BrianTung 20:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Spears said, "I love my babies." IS grammatically correct. Since she stated that phrase or that sentence, we are going to write it as such. The punctuation period (.) must be included in the quotation mark("); however, if it's a word being quoted, like "'bête noire'.", then it's correct. If you're having edit wars because of that having such sites to cite, then, read an English book that would suffice every editors' mind. In addition, with that consistency thing, yes, we should, for Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and many searchers depend on this site, so that our articles, especially their grammar, should not be misleading so they will not cause other people to use such erroneous punctuations. BritandBeyonce 07:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you've just violently agreed with what I wrote. BrianTung 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter?--Jak3m 18:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There are actually different ways depending on the country. "Britney said, "I love my babies"." is the correct way that sentence is written in Australia. 124.182.91.241 10:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Rusty8.

Try not to use the word Britney in the article
When talking about Britney Spears, it's best to Spears, and not Britney. Using Britney makes the article look unprofessional and it gives a lack of consistency. Also we don't need to use Spears in every single sentence, use it in the lead sentence in a paragraph, then start using she and her for the rest of the paragraph. Oidia (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural influences
OK, I know that the Public image section was a disaster because it became almost impossible to achieve NPOV. There have been many suggestions in this talk page to have a section outlining Spears' contributions to pop culture. So this new section titled Cultural influences should be a great addition to the article, and it's not hard to achieve NPOV for describing the impact of Britney Spears on pop culture.

To start off the section, we should gather points, information, and sources that will be put in it. To start off I have this: (Since Maddyfan thinks this statement is out of date for the introduction and I personally think it sounds awkward in the Career development section, that's why it's a good idea to have a section like this)
 * Forbes ranked Spears as the world's most powerful celebrity in 2002.

Please DO NOT go ahead and create that section yet. Start throwing points, info and references here in the talk page first, then we'll evaluate whether if it is neutral and noteworthy, and then we add it into the section. And remember to have a RELIABLE SOURCE to back up every points that we wish to contribute to this section. Having a creditable source can justisfy the neutrality of this section. Oidia (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the suggested section really amounts to a proposed claim about Spears' "cultural influence" built from facts relating to her career and reception in popular culture. This sounds suspiciously like the kind of original research proscribed by WP:SYN, and I think it would add nothing to this article.--Agnaramasi 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why we are brainstorming here first and then evaluate if there's a need for this section. Oidia (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention. Judging by other celebrity feature articles like Kylie Minogue and Gwen Stefani, it is possible to achieve NPOV, and have no original research in a section like this. We just have to work together to make it perfect. Oidia (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, that was the first thing to go last time. Just because you find one reviewer saying, "Oh she did this," doesn't really confirm any impact.  68.82.82.248 08:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

New Britney single leaked and is available on Z100.com in New York. I think with all the buzz right now, it would be useful to add this link: http://www.z100.com/pages/britney_premiere.html

Michael.reichard 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears alias
Is it true that the fake personna of Britney Spears is called "Brittany Person", similar to Christina Aguilera's "Xtina"? Kaksisi 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Spears' should be Spears's
Have a look at Apostrophe as well as http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html and http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-possessive.htm Also refer to the book Eats shoots and leaves. Also note the the article about her 5th album has been correctly moved to indicate this. Also note the BBC pages on her,

Please don't mis-correct these back to Spears' just because many people make the same error. Only plurals ending with S loose the post-apostrophe s MrMarmite 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, the wiki page you quote says

"If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by University of Delaware, The Guardian, Emory University's writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; James's house, or James' house, depending on which pronunciation is intended."

So it seems to be up to the writer's discretion about whether they think the word is difficult to pronounce with the added 's'. A lot of the sources you give seem to back you up though, lol so I'm confused now. It looks wierd to me with the extra s. Because I'm not so used to it being written like that- 65,800,000 basic google search results for Spears', 273,000 for Spears's.  Like you say, that doesn't mean they're right, though. http://www.csbsju.edu/writingcenters/handouts/apostrophes.htm really seems up to what the writer's individual 'ear' thinks sounds right.Merkinsmum 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the 6th paragraph in this article, the writer used Spears'. Oidia (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was drawn here from the Language Reference Desk, and I will just say that both ways of forming the possessive occur in well-written literature. To say that one or the other is incorrect is quite simply not true. Have fun duking it out. Strad 04:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * hehe, yeah. I asked about this in the reference desk and there were varying answers. Have a look Oidia (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, after reading the many answers in the reference desk, the correct one is Spears's. Oidia (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that may be the "proper" way but it simply looks ugly to my eyes. I've go through the article and reworked the text involved to remove all the "s's" words that I could. Only one left is the link to Britney Spears's fifth studio album, and that'll end up being renames once it actually gets released. Tabercil 04:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This has made me think about it. Plural possessives with an s always take a lone apostrophe. Speaking for myself, I've applied this to other possessives ending with s which are pronounced with a single s ...and have never been nettled over it. Something like lens's would be an exception for me. That said, I guess it's ok to add an apostrophe-s to a given or family name ending in an 's' but since I'd tend to pronounce the possessive of her name with a singly-voiced s at the end I'd likewise tend write it Spears'. Looks to me like taste and regional pronunciations likely have something to do with the varying approaches. Gwen Gale 04:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to see how various sources tackle the question. The BBC's most recent article on Britney has as it's lead sentence: "By now, you will know that Britney Spears' much-vaunted comeback appearance..." while the New York Times says in its review of her movie Crossroads: "Ms. Spears's style of acting is exactly what you would expect from this highly disciplined performer...". So there you have two of the most visible news sources going in entirely opposite directions. Tabercil 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, especially as the BBC usually uses the Spears's form. MrMarmite 12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that is not the only story on the BBC website which does not follow the apostrophe with the letter s. (And I'm only on page 8 of 46 of the results of a search of all the pages on the BBC news site with the phrase "Britney Spears" present). Tabercil 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just forget it. English is a messy language. Aran|heru|nar 11:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

VMA
yo this needs a current event regarding 2007 video music awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.128.215 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Original Doll
I put in a section about her unreleased album 'The Original Doll' I think it's notewhorty because Britney confirmed the album itself and there were songs recorded but it was eventual canceled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing of it is, you didn't provide a reference to anything except the chart performance of Got Me High, so that's all that could remain in the article. Please provide a reliable source and it can be reinserted. Jeffpw 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I could find this link:http://www.8notes.com/biographies/spears.asp#Original_Doll

I hope that this link is enough to put the original doll in the article. User:Ikkomuitnederland 11.40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Attention new editors - correct way to cite websites
I have noticed that many new editors simply put (ref) [url] (/ref) when they cite a website. This is not the correct method for wikipedia.

When you are citing a website, you need these information:
 * the publisher of the source (which is the website itself)
 * the author that wrote the source (usually "editors from the website")
 * the date of publication (if not available, then leave it)
 * the retrieval date (the date that you found the source)
 * the url (of course)
 * the title (a name for the source)

Now, click on "edit" and see how you should code in all the information for citing the source

Thanks. Oidia (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

TIME Magazine says
''Her first single and first four albums made their debut at No.1. Since then Spears has sold 76 million records and amassed a $150 million fortune.'' The source here (go to the 20th slide) says she sold 76 million RECORDS, not albums. Please DO NOT change it to albums. Thanks. Oidia (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh! After the release of her next album, her record sales figure will definitely change. So we should keep an eye out for reliable sources that provides an up-to-date sales figure. Oidia (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

VMA performance
I think that should be left out of Return to Music. That section needs to be as simple and to-the-point as possible. It should include news on the album, single and any career news that mention what she was doing without saying she bombed or whatever. That should be left for the VMA page and the single since she was performing Gimme More. especially once the album comes out, the info will not be relevant. It will be out-of-date and useless. The info on RTM needs to be so that it will not need to be changed eventually once her career will fully kick in to front-burner.Soapfan06 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the level of mention is rather appropriate right now. Her performance at the 2007 VMAs gathered as much publicity as her performance in a prior VMA... you know, the one where she kissed Madonna? That earlier VMA appearance is summarized in one sentence at this point, so the same for the 2007 VMA seems suitable. Tabercil 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that is only acceptable until she does more career-related moves. Return to music should only include the real important info. The fact that she failed to repeat her previous winnings should be excluded since it does not promote anything good and it seems to me like the whole section needs to be more swayed towards the basic info since the rest of the current news has a negative spin on it. It should definitely be excluded once the album comes out. Nobody will care by then what happened at an awards how most thought was bad enough as it was. Soapfan06 06:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * True. Because currently the "Return to music" section is rather short, and not many info are available yet, that one sentence describing the VMA performance should stay for time being.
 * It all depends on how long this section is going to become in the end. If the section becomes very long (and I have a feeling that it will), then we should remove these very minor details. If the section is not long in the end, then those minor details can probably stay.
 * On a side note, the previous sections "Early commercial success" and "Career development" only mentioned the singles: "...Baby One More Time", "Oops!... I Did It Again", "I'm A Slave 4 U" and "Toxic". So I'd say that we should only mention "Gimme More" for the "Return to music" section and cut out all the other singles. Oidia (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The performance generated a significant amount of press, so it should be mentioned, even after "more career-related moves". --Phirazo 03:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

single a success?
Someoone had put in the article that 'gimme more' was a success with high chart posiitions. That's not what I've read and the sources they gave didn't back that up. So I removed it, hope people don't mind too much. Sorry if this was rude for me to do, but I've only heard it being panned. If it has done well I'm sure sources could easily be found which say that.Merkinsmum 20:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It topped at 16 on billboard, anything in top 40 is considered a success. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003641979 Dalielah 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * hmm, I think the best solution is to not mentioning whether the single is a success or not. Just put in sourced factual information like sales figures and position on charts. And then let the reader themselves decide whether or not it's a success. Oidia (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

More news about Britney
See here for some more info. Apparently, as of the moment, Mrs. Spears has been banned from the Chateau Marmont hotel, her lawyer has dumped her, she is likely to lose custody of her kids, Playboy might not want to take pictures of her naked anymore (gee, big surprise), and she's been holding emergency meetings with Fed-Ex, apparently over her kids. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the news flash! links, please. :-) Jeffpw 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Management
Since she was only managed by them for a month and this does not really belong in this section anyway, I suggest we delete this useless info.Soapfan06 22:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly does belong, it's very much part of her struggle in the return to music. MrMarmite 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Behaviour
I feel that a few sentances should be included about her suitability as a role-model for Young People given her life-style. Webpendragon 09:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)webpendragon 22/09/07

Introduction
I added a reference to all the trouble around Spears to the introduction. The last few years, and especially this year, Spears has only been known to the public as that troubled star of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looskuh (talk • contribs) 10:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:MTV 2007.jpg
Does anyone like that picture? My head says "ill, gross" everytime I look at it. When we have a new, better looking image of her recent career activities, we should replace this existing one. Oidia (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. What on earth could be wrong with Britney in underpants????? It subtly illustrates everything going on with Britney right now, from her poor MTV appearance itself, to the birth of her children and resulting weight gain and her chopping off her hair and needing those awful extensions. It positively encapsulates Miss Spears, and as such should remain, and possibly replace the main image of the page. Jeffpw 12:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What you said is all true, but I started to avoid "Return to music" section because that picture really turns me off. IMHO I enjoy starring at Britney Spears in underpants, when she used to be good looking. Like these pictures, . That MTV VMA one though, it's not very pleasant to look at. Yes you are right, it does show the consequences of her actions (giving birth resulting to weight gain, drugs, too much red bull) But don't use it as the main, it's horrible. Oidia (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Gross. Also it's a fair-use image, I thought that wasn't allowed. Kraft. 02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-free media is probably OK in this context, since there isn't a free alternative and it serves an encyclopedic purpose. --Phirazo 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, It is only being used in the infobox to show what she looks like. There is a free alternative Image:Britney-Spears082.jpg that can be used for that purpose and it will be replaced per WP:NFCC policy - don't use a fair use image when a free image is available. --Eqdoktor 09:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant in the "2007: Return to music" section, not as the lead photo. I agree that the lead photo should be a free one, but I think an image of her performance at the 2007 Video Music Awards serves an encylopedic purpose that words alone do not. --Phirazo 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?
Not even a mention of her shaving off her hair?? It was on the front cover of every magazine! It deserves some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.163 (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it was in here at some point in the past, but some of Britney's more rabid fans tend to delete negative material. I'm surprised that the reference to her performance at the 2007 MTV VMAs hasn't been deleted.--Wee Charlie 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

this article is ridiculous. britney is in the news everyday for being a weirdo, and yet it factors very little into this article. the personal struggles section is tiny, and people ARE trying to get the VMA thing taken out. wikipedia articles are supposed to be NPOV, but not celebratory. at this point britney is FAR more notable for doing stupid things than for music. she hasn't released a record in almost 4 years! come on now. here's an example of how NPOV this article is: "Spears's marriage to back-up dancer Kevin Federline and the birth of her two children, Sean Preston and Jayden James, put her music career on hold. The couple's divorce in November 2006 was highly publicized and followed by an on-going legal battle for custody of their two children." her MARRIAGE and CHILDREN put her music career on hold?! who believes that tripe? her children and marriage never kept her from partying all hours of the night and abusing drugs and alcohol. i don't think ANYONE except the most delusional would believe her music career has been at a standstill due to her children and marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.11.149 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the last paragraph is in a dilliusional world, i don't agree with britney but what your trying to say is it is her fault. Like when everything that went wrong when she was with K-Fed. I love brit, yes she did shit wrong but fuck it like nothing we can do now can change her comeback her proper one!!!! Just wait and see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.184.159 (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Britney shaving her hair off IS mentioned and was never removed. "The following night, Spears went to a haircutting studio in Tarzana, California and shaved her hair off with clippers."
 * "Spears's marriage to back-up dancer Kevin Federline and the birth of her two children, Sean Preston and Jayden James, put her music career on hold" - it clearly states that her marriage and childern put her music career on hold. Now, drugs, alcohol, partying are not music careers.
 * So please read the article again, more carefully this time, before jumping to a judgement so quickly. Oidia (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Train wreck and white elephant
This girl is a train wreck in full color. Yet the article doesn't get this across and completely ignores the matter in the lead. Its like a big white elephant in the room that no one talks about. --Blue Tie 23:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't talk about it because its interpretation not fact.--Agnaramasi 23:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not quite true. It is a fact. How that fact is interpreted might be open to discussion.  But probably not for True Believers. --Blue Tie 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with the following policies -
 * Neutral point of view
 * No original research
 * Verifiability
 * Biographies of living persons

Unsupported tabloid libel has no place in Wikipedia. --Eqdoktor 07:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've actually been an editor on wikipedia longer than you have. You seem to be missing my point. --Blue Tie 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a point.--Agnaramasi 18:24, 02 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.58.115 (talk)


 * Laugh, I ALWAYS goto Wiki for the best tabloid bashing and dirt I can find on people. This site ALWAYS (times infinity) features the same trashy gossip, rumors, and personal dirt that the tabloids have. So stop pretending like this article on Britney is going to be fair and only cover the truth. I'm not her fan, in fact I can't stand her, but I don't like these high and mighty editors who think their running Encyclopedia Brittanica.... 76.172.250.188 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well maybe you can help contribute to Wikipedia by eliminating trashy gossips and tabloids from articles. And we should not "pretend" to be neutral in this article, we have to be neutral since it's the fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Oidia (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievably Biased Article - Not Fair
This article is solely written and guarded by Britney's stubborn and standoffish fans; I do not see NPOV at all. They try to eliminate every negative material on Britney, but everyone knows what kind of person Britney is and we all know the schizophrenic thngs she does. Where is the information of Britney being a no-show at the Allure Mag's interview? Where is the information of her being diagnosed with bipolar disorder? Where is the information of Britney's former bodyguard speaking out? Where is the information of her being under the influence? Where is the information of Britney spending more time partying (with Paris Hilton, nonetheless) than being with her kids or concentrating on her music career? What about the fact that she was seen without underwear, more than once? All of us KNOW why Britney mangled her VMA performance! She was seen partying in Las Vegas 2 days in a row than focusing on getting her performance right!

Source: www.entertainmentwise.com/news?id=37160

http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/2007/09/07/britney-spears-parties-the-night-before-vma-rehearsals/

http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah6749.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.2 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your constructive criticisms and actually providing some reliable sources for backing up your points. But for the first source you've provided, it says "A psychologist has claimed that Britney Spears' erratic behaviour could be a result of Bipolar disorder." - see the text bolded by me? That means the expert is not 100% certain whether she is suffering from Bipolar disorder. And hence it's not "factual" and we shouldn't add in the article.
 * With the latter 2 sources you have provided, we probably shouldn't add anything from those websites into the article according to WP:BLP, and especially WP:BLP. As well there are WP:BETTER, particularly WP:SS which suggests that we should not mention every single little detail that occured on her life.
 * With all those other points you've mentioned, they sound true. However, you need to find reliable sources to verify them, otherwise we can't insert them in the article anyway.
 * Last but not least, the article is neutral. Because we did not insert information such as "'...Baby One More Time' and '(You Drive Me) Crazy' and 'Oops!... I Did It Again' and 'Lucky' and 'Stronger' and 'Toxic' are the greatest pop songs ever! Everybody loves them!" - OK, maybe I've exagerrated a little there.
 * Nevertheless, thank you again for your contributions. Oidia (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've decided to create an account, so that I can argue with you peacefully. The schizophrenic things that Britney has done is enough to fill up the size of a Webster's Dictionary. The article is neutral, but the personal life section is ridiculously biased. I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware of the things that Britney has done (from kissing Colin Farrell in a club to wearing something trampy). If you want the sources, I'll get them for you, but I won't be surprised if the fans defend Britney for everything a la Chris Crocker. Lustmord and wargazm 06:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be wrong to put up the opinion of a psychologist who was not treating her -- because he would not know a thing really, and it would be an horrific violation for someone who was treating her to talk about it. So... we probably cannot say "She's crazy".--Blue Tie 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

ciao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.165.181 (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lustmord and wargazm, please be aware that aside from WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, there is another wikipedia policy of WP:BLP and particular WP:BLP as I have stated above. Please familiarise yourself with these policies.
 * And if we were to add these sensitive information to the article, we should have a consensus first in accordance to WP:CON. Because it clearly states in WP:BLP that An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
 * Last but not least, you MUST provide RELIABLE sources, and please be aware that a consensus have already established earlier in this talk page that gossip/tabloid magazines, as well as gossip/tabloid websites are not reliable sources. Oidia (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

'Do not harm'? 'Factual?' I noticed that this page is EXTREMELY censored... It disgusts me; a TINY sectiontion summing up a few of the things that the media hs been screaming about. Since when is writing the truth harmful? And since when can't the media be relied on? Heck, they are all screaming the same things and show the same pics and videos... And you want to act like there is nothing to it? That there is no proof? Wow, now I bet if i look at Hitler's page it'll show a long list on negative things he did... And yes, I dare to compare Spears to Hitler because she is marching herself right into her own death camp and you guarded fans are making failing efforts to cover her flabby butt. And please don't bother tying to message me; i'll delete it. You got something to say, say it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Landgren (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And what are you suggesting that we add into the article? That she is mentally retarded? We've already recognised that she is undergoing multiple personal struggles and that's why we have a section with the heading "Personal struggles". Once again, with all the things that "the media" is saying, they are journalists, not psychiatrists, so they can't say whether if Britney is mentally ill or not. And with that source above, just like Blue Tie said, a psychiatrist should not make a statement like that without having evening treating her first hand. Finally, we do not report every single little unencyclopedic detail of her life because of WP:SS. Oidia (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and I also forgot to mention. 3 days ago this article has just passed GA. And reviewer Dr. Cash commented "Overall, I think this article covers the personal life and professional career of Ms. Spears very well, and in an unbiased manner." Got anymore to say? Oidia (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oidia, Spears makes headlines everywhere with excess media coverage and tabloid fodder over everything she does. Its not about whether Britney is mentally ill. Its about the insane things she does almost every week. About 2 months ago, she made headlines by having sex with a college student. I challenge you to put that in. Simply because the college student himnself commented on the "experience". Lustmord and wargazm 09:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOT, it says: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. So no, I will not put that in. Oidia (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about including the fact that Britney dated Fred Durst? www.eonline.com/celebrities/profile/index.jsp?uuid=4299b69e-a001-4915-9331-1ccd05b6b365 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.220.10 (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And who gives a shit? A celebrity is forbidden to date? Just because a celebrity is dating someone doesn't mean it's notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Aran|heru|nar 11:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

both parents ordered not to use corporal punishment
This was deleted. Why?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/10/01/spears.federline/index.html And he ordered the parents to go through "joint co-parenting counseling" and barred them from using corporal punishment on the boys.

Inclusion of this in the article does not say that either abused the boys. It is merely a fact stated by the judge. Mrs.EasterBunny 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
This article meets all of the Good Article criteria, and will be listed. All of the previously mentioned GA comments seem to have been addressed, and the article is well-written, with good, clear, and concise prose. Reference citations are sufficient, and all images are tagged appropriately. Although you might want to double-check Image:BOMTV.jpg; it has a 'digital watermarking' tag on it, indicating that someone may have raised a copyright issue here. Though it is tagged with the appropriate copyright tags and fair-use rationale, so this is not a major issue.

Overall, I think this article covers the personal life and professional career of Ms. Spears very well, and in an unbiased manner. I also don't see any major stability issues; though keep in mind that she does get quite a bit of press coverage (much of it somewhat negative), and it would help if someone kept an eye on this on their watch page for awhile. It might also be good idea if some of the regular editors added their names to the top of the page using maintained, as well.

Good work on the article! Dr. Cash 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dr Cash.
 * Alright, time to prepare this article for FA status, damn that means it has to be flawless, gonna be hard to do. Oidia (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Crossroads
I find this sentence "As an actress, she is most noted for her starring role in the 2002 movie Crossroads.[6]" rather ambiguous and not entirely accurate. (The reference is only to the IMDB page for the film.) Crossroads was a star-vehicle like Michael Jackson's Moonwalker. It was created for Britney, there was no audition process and it was a pretty dismal failure (again like Moonwalker). Something about the text as it seems to suggest that this was a serious movie and that getting the starring role is worthy of note. Can we rephrase? I'd favour something like "In film her most notable work was the lead role in the star vehicle Crossroads (2006)." --Rhi 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, I don't know how to change it, you can do it. Oidia (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Lead
OK, so that discussion about improving the lead started in my talk page User talk:Oidia. So we probably have to move the album sales figure somewhere else and totally revamp the lead section by seeing how other FAs do it. Oidia (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is my version. Please have a look.


 * Britney Jean Spears (born December 2, 1981) is an American pop music singer, songwriter, dancer, actress, and author. Her debut album ...Baby one more time, released in January 1999, propelled her to stardom selling twenty million copies worldwide. It spawned the singles "...Baby one more time", which topped the Billboard Hot 100, "You drive me crazy", and "Born to make you happy". She released her sophomore studio album Oops!... I Did It Again in 2000 with similar success. Her third album Britney was released in November 2001, followed by a fourth album In The Zone in November 2003. The collection Greatest Hits: My Prerogative was released in November 2004.


 * Spears has sold over 83 million records worldwide according to Zomba Label Group and has sold over 75 million albums worldwide. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) ranks her as the eighth best-selling female artist in American music history, having sold 31 million albums in the U.S.


 * Spears's fame in the music industry has led her to experiment with other forms of media, including film and reality television. As an actress, she is most noted for her starring role in the 2002 movie Crossroads. Spears has also made guest appearances in various other movies and television programs. Her success as a singer led her to several high-profile advertising deals and endorsements including her own perfume line.


 * Spears's personal life has gained much attention from the media. In particular, her marriage to back-up dancer Kevin Federline and the birth of their two children, Sean Preston and Jayden James. The couple's divorce in November 2006 was highly publicized and has been followed by a legal battle for custody of their sons.


 * Her fifth album entitled Blackout is scheduled to be released worldwide in November 2007.

The sources should be replaced. Luxurious.gaurav 05:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nicely done. I'll use this as a basic model and make minor adjustments to it. Althought I think it should be no longer than 3 paragraphs. Oidia (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review
OK, since it appears that no one is responding to this and the lack of enthusiasm in general from editors to bring this article into FA, I've sent it to peer review. Peer review/Britney Spears. Oidia (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And I also sent it to Wikiproject Biography's peer review. WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Britney Spears. Oidia (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Whilst" is never appropriate, least of all in this article.
"Whilst" is a deprecated and archaic word, yes, even in British English. It should never be used when "while" will do. Having said that, though, the subject of this article is an American woman, and most of the events in this article take place in the USA -- making the use of "whilst" all the more jarring and inappropriate. Somebody with access, please replace any occasions of "whilst" with "while". There's currently only one, but I've noticed that "whilst"s tend to proliferate like dandelions. Thanks a bunch! --63.25.100.198 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact it is not archaic, but is in everyday use. And it is not "deprecated" - see Worldwide words. Perhaps you shouldn't be editing - cranky and ignorant, not a good combination. Virginia has worldwide reputation for being backward, it would be better if you didn't confirm it. Thanks a bunch! 62.64.206.147 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is only one person above showing their ignorance. Assume good faith is a mantra of wikipedia, you should give it a go. Very few Americans use "whilst" and it would seem out of place in an American based article. I happily use it when writing for an English audience but not when writing for Americans. FYI..I am half America half English and an author. MrMarmite 07:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Britney's record sales
According to her record label "Zomba" she has sold over 83 million records. Shouldn't we update the article?

http://www.zombalabelgroup.com/news.html#57741

Skinwalker03 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It should have changed a long time ago.Soapfan06 01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Britney has sold at least 145 million records.She truly is a phenomenon! I think Zomba was referring to ALBUMS sold,not records.It said UNITS which I think referred to albums because it talked about her first album before mentioning the 83m thing.Because if you add the singles sales,the total sales just goes waaaay up.Since not all single sales are mentioned,from whats been said,totalled at about 145 million records at least.She truly truly is a phenomenon.She's sooo successful and popular! People just love her music.Britney can just retire,I mean,look at what she has achieved?! 145 million sold in 8 years!!!!! Most recording artist' dont even sell ANYWHERE close to that.She can just sit back and say..wow look at ALL THAT! J87

Dropped by The Firm
Since Britney was only with them for 1 month, is there any point to include it in the article for return to music? I think not. Soapfan06 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably let it stay for now, when more information becomes available and when that section becomes too long, we can then remove it. Oidia (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean the return to music section!
That page is really getting messy! First it talks about the single than it talks about the firm and the page is titled: return to music: blackout. But there is no mention of blackout in the section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.25.54.31 (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there is, "The album, entitled Blackout, is scheduled to be released in November 2007". Oidia (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Messy section
Return to music looks messy and confusing, it doesn't flow very well either.--Jak3m 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FA status
I still wonder what needs to be done to this article, i personally think its as good as lets say Kylie Minogue.

hmmm--Jak3m 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've sent it to peer review Peer_review, received some comments and I've pretty much fixed all of the problems. You can still cut back on the wikilinks like a reviewer suggested. Ignore the automated review though, it's wrong. Oidia (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Jakem, I've done cutting down on the wikilinks, except for the lead which needs a revamp. Although some suggestions in the Automated review could be looked at, such as a copy edit. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and this too! Luxurious.gaurav has suggested that the lead is to be changed around. See Talk:Britney Spears. I think it's a good idea because we shouldn't have sales information in the very first paragraph, since A. it changes all the time and B. it's usually not 100% accurate. So I'll give it another 24 hours and see if anyone objects to the proposed changes to the lead, if no one objects, I'll change it. And then we'll send this to WP:FAC. Oidia (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Last but not least, this article can be a bit unstable at times. When information become available about her album, the singles from the album, the custody battle, or just the latest Britney gossip, editors will add them in, usually in a not-so-well-written manner. Also, new sentences usually don't fully integrate into the prose, and becomes like a "listing" of everything that has happened. So we'll need to keep a close eye on new materials and improve them as we see fit. Also, editors still don't know how to cite websites properly. Remember that it is  . Thanks. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My version of the lead
Britney Jean Spears (born December 2, 1981) is an American pop music singer, songwriter, dancer, actress, and author. Her debut album ...Baby One More Time, released in January 1999, propelled her to international stardom selling twenty five million copies worldwide.[ref] It spawned the singles "...Baby One More Time", which topped the Billboard Hot 100,[ref] "(You Drive Me) Crazy", and "Born to Make You Happy". She released her sophomore studio album Oops!... I Did It Again in 2000 with similar success,[ref] along with the singles "Oops!... I Did It Again", "Lucky" and "Stronger". Her third album Britney was released in November 2001. Although not as successful as her two previous albums, Spears assumed more creative control over the album's tracks for the first time. This was followed by her the release of her fourth album In The Zone in November 2003. The album's lead single "Toxic" was an international success and has won Spears her first Grammy Award.[ref] The collection Greatest Hits: My Prerogative was released in November 2004 followed by a brief career break. Her fifth album Blackout is scheduled to be released worldwide in October 2007, while the lead single "Gimme More" has already become an international top ten hit.

Spears has sold over 83 million records worldwide according to Zomba Label Group and has sold over 75 million albums worldwide according to Forbes Magazine.[ref][ref] The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) ranks her as the eighth best-selling female artist in American music history, having sold 31 million albums in the U.S.[ref] Spears's fame in the music industry has led her to experiment with other forms of media, including film and television. As an actress, she is most noted for her starring role in the 2002 movie Crossroads.[ref] Spears has also made guest appearances in various other movies and television programs. Her success as a singer led her to several high-profile advertising deals and endorsements including her own perfume line.

Spears's personal life has gained much attention from the media as a result of her stardom. In particular, her four-year relationship with Justin Timberlake from 1998 to 2002, and a short marriage to Jason Allen Alexander in 2004. In the same year, Spears married back-up dancer Kevin Federline. She gave birth to her first child Sean Preston in 2005 and to her second child Jayden James in 2006. The couple's divorce in November 2006 was highly publicized, followed by a legal battle for the custody of their two sons. Throughout 2007, Spears has been the subject of media scrutiny from a series of controversial behaviours in public.

So, I'll be implementing the lead based on the above model fairly soon. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, of course i support this. And yes! I am Luxurious.gaurav and i have changed my name. Indianescence 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I have changed the lead around. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Silicone
Why isnt it mentioned that she got silicone implants when she was still a teenager? Nastykermit

Because it has NEVER been proven. This is an encyclopedia not a trashy tabloid magazine.75.57.182.37 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The fragrance list
There are several problems with that list I think that we don't need that list at all, we should remove it. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Her perfumes are not part of discography, so it's placed under the wrong section.
 * 2) Her perfumes are already being mentioned in "Products and endorsement" section.
 * 3) The columns were well arranged before, and now this newly added section kind of disrupted the arrangement, because it looks so blank to the right of the list.
 * 4) The title is not in line with MoS. We shouldn't use forward slash. And only the first word should be capitalised, the rest shouldn't.

i only did it cause i thought it should go there, but oh well that was my first ever wikipedia edit im a huge britney spears fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwaysHere123 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's totally fine. Thanks for your contribution. We've all had our first edit experience and my first few edits were a lot messier than this. LOL. Anyway, feel free to keep contributing to this article. You can also attach a signature to your comments with  ~ . Thanks. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsexiest
How is mentioning her as a top five unsexiest woman in Maxim important to return to music? I think it should be removed. Soapfan06 22:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it doesn't belong under Return to Music. It should go under 2007 - Personal Struggles instead.  (It's a good contemporary citation of her deteriorating public image).--Wee Charlie 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, someone does not seem to understand that this info is useless and does not belong in the Return to Music section. It will keep getting deleted until it cn get proper placement and a reason for it being added in the article is provided because most can agree this is not necessary and nobody else gets something like this added to their page/ Soapfan06 20:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Pop Tart" nickname
I wanted to contribute a passage to Spears's article, but figured I should first post it in the discussion page before going ahead with it.

As many of you may know, Spears's unofficial nickname is "Pop Tart". Many people believe this is simply a pun, with her being a pop singer and/or having a "tart" personality, but what some folks don't realize is that the name most likely originated from Spears's well-documented love of Kellogg's Pop Tarts. So, I was thinking maybe we should mention this in the article. The fact that she likes Kellogg's Pop Tarts may sound like general trivia, but this fact is fairly important because this nickname is often used in print and many people don't realize its exact origin. With that in mind, here is what I would like to write (word-for-word):

''Spears is often colloquially referred to by the media with the moniker "Pop Tart". Although an obvious allusion to her status as a pop singer, the name more likely originated from Spears's known prediliction for Kellogg's Pop Tarts.''

What do y'all think?

I do have one citation for this, but I'm looking for one or two more. If the passage is acceptable enough to be included in the article, let me know and I'll provide the citation before I post it. Additionally, let's be fair and civilized when critiquing the suggestions of others. ;) Sean 2015 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)sean_2015


 * I think this is a bit of a stretch, as I've heard the term applied to other performers. The implication of "pop tart" usually is of a pop performer that is a 'tart' -- In British English: "A promiscuous woman or a woman who dresses in a sexually provocative way, or a prostitute."  I would care to bet that this definition is closer to the mark.--24.57.234.251 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think this is relevant to the article, it's not very 'wikified'.--Jak3m 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Persoanl struggles
ARE custody battles, trouble with law, etc. That is redundantSoapfan06 05:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Britney has lost vistain rights to see her two sons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheridanh123456 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

She has regained them already.75.57.194.245 06:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Public Image section necessary
A section for Public Image is necesary for a celebrity. You may follow Gwen Stefani article for this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Stefani#Public_image Indianescence 07:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the Public Image section. In fact, this article had a public image section back in the start of this year. But it was removed altogether due to POV issues. Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 5
 * I have made suggestions to start a similar section


 * Talk:Britney Spears
 * Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 6
 * but was faced with strong opposition, especially from User 68.82.82.248.
 * I think it's probably easier to start such a section when Britney becomes slightly less controversial. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal Struggles
This section could do with a cleanup, especially the legal side of the section. Shes regained visitation rights as well so it needs to be updated.--Jak3m 18:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, she has just lost all visitation rights. I find the section OK for the time being, although the information on the legal cases could be summed up further. Besides, we don't want a maintainence tag while it is a FAC. So I'll just remove it for the time being, if it needs clean up, then I'm pretty sure the FA reviews will definitely point it out and we'll clean it up then. Thanks. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening
The opening is never suppose to have the entire article listed below, in it's opening. Please see other Wiki pages. This has been discussed numerous times. It is sloppy and Wiki no-no. The opening is to give a broad overview of the person that the article contains. All the information now there, is written in the topics below, and the opening basicallycontains the entire entire article in full. It is way too long. I hope you understand the trimming. This is going to keep the article from getting any kind of high grade. Maddyfan 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead is meant to summarise the entire article as a whole. Your so called "trimming" is unacceptable. It failed to mention her 4 existing studio albums as well as some of her most well known songs. Like you said, when checking the other feature articles like Gwen Stefani and you'll see that albums are mentioned in the lead. 2 editors including myself and Indianescence have reached the consensus above, you need to follow them. Finally your "trimming" has caused problems in the references. Your edits have caused ref 21, 27 and 59 to become an error. I am reverting it to a slightly shorter section and please be more responsible next time when you make edits like these. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the breakout single not the lead single.75.57.166.80 05:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Instruments
Why was the instruments removed from the infobox? I think it is worth noting that she plays the Piano, as is seen in the track Someday (I Will Understand), in which she played all of the piano accompanying the track. Save-Me-Oprah 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * She also played the piano on her tour to Everytime :)--Jak3m 16:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

News reports in Personal struggles
Just like to let you know that from Featured article candidates/Britney Spears, I have to cut back on the excessive details in that section. These cut backs are a nessecary step for the article to enter FA. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image
Shouldn't we change it to something more recent? I mean that image is 4 years old.

Maybe something from her new album? example; this one or this one--Jak3m 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be nice, however I doubt there are any free images out there. She's changed a lot so the pic should change with it. Save-Me-Oprah 18:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What Britney said
How is saying eat it suck it...making any impact on the personal struggles section? It does not belong..it could have been ajoke and some say she did not say it at all...it does NOT belong! Totally useless...75.57.166.80 05:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is with people against Access Hollywood as a source?
I tried adding the information in http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah7214.shtml and people here don't like it. Maybe they're all huge Britney Spears fans. If I come to this article, I want it to have stuff like what's reported there--the good details, not some vague stuff everyone already knows. Their quote of her there is one of the best quotes I have ever heard of anyone. William Ortiz 07:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of wikipedia in particular is to inform a person with absolute no knowledge of who Britney Spears is. So that's why wikipedia is about the stuff that "everybody knows about her". Please have detail read through What Wikipedia is NOT and you'll understand what belongs and what doesn't belong in wikipedia. Last but not least, the quotes from that site belong in Wikiquotes, not in wikipedia. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)