Talk:If U Seek Amy/Archive 1

ALBUM ART
this si tghe official album art, http://www.britneyspears.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.152.211 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE
can somebody add that it was played during the pandora episode of skins a channel 4 tv show in the untied kingdom, link to episode on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skins_episodes#Series_3        much appreciated  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.164.88 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong title
If the article survives Speedy, needs to be renamed without "(song)". PamD (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

... Just did it anyway - not allowed under AfD but think it's OK with a speedy. PamD (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Officially announced as 3rd single
On her 2 official websites, Britneyspears.com and Britney.comUKWiki (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One has blog in the title, the other was written by "lead bitch", no reliable sources, redirected. — Realist  2  21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Britney.com is the official website of Jive Records for the artist, I think it's reliable.--Sakrileg (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blog. — Realist  2  21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just a blog. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If U Seek Amy
If U Seek Amy is a song by American Pop Singer Britney Spears.The song was announced to be the third single off of album Circus on January 7, 2009.

REALIST2 - BRITNEYSPEARS.com IS HER OFFICIAL, OFFICIAL O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L Website, And 'Lead Bitch' is one of the members of HER team!

Update
Based on a new source at the album page, I have asked Ericorbit to unprotect this article, allowing you all to edit. So long as he agrees the source is reliable, he might very well not, the article should be editable within the next 6-7 hours (when he's next online). Best, and thanks for staying patient throughout all this *Rolls eyes*. — Realist  2  05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. - eo (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Background
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the Background section is incorrect. The poll on her official website is entitled: "Poll: Guess Britney's Next Single" and so the choice of single was not reliant on the outcome of the poll. Tomayres 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Official Cover
http://www.britneyspears.com/2009/01/if-u-seek-amy-dance-off.php

Is that the official cover? I knw they had contest to make fan-made covers, but I don't remember seeing that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enanoj1111 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No that appears to be an image to promote the contest itself. Any official covers will probably be reported on the official sites saying "This is the official single cover" or something to that effect. AngelOfSadness  talk  23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Britney Fans tend to make fake covers on all these silly sites. That's why Radar (song) was fully protected at least once. — Realist  2  23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. :) Enanoj1111 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Public Reaction
The first sentence of the public reaction piece is a little awkward as it says "Some parents thought the titled sounds like "F-U-C-K Me"" In fact, that is what it sounds like because that is what is intended in the song. Does that make sense? I think it should be more along the lines of "some parents were offended by the double meaning of the song and its title".
 * There is no proof that the alleged similarity was intentional. — Realist  2  04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * really? REALLY? because every single review in the above section "critical reaction" refers to the chorus as "F-U-C-K me" and the chorus "all the boys and the girls want to If You Seek Amy" actually ONLY makes sense as the double entendre. are we really going to say that "Some parents thought the title "If U Seek Amy" sounds like "F-U-C-K Me" when said aloud and sung."? because that seems a bit naive, even for wikipedia.
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vysgvjvH3ZA, there is a video of Larry Rudolph saying that the song is "provacative and interesting", he wouldn't say that if the song were simply about people looking for Amy. It's pretty much common sense.  "All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to if u seek amy" doesn't make sense at all in the sense of people looking for someone.  It was an intended double meaning.  Not only that interview, but several of the review for the album that point out that song use the sentence "say it quickly" or something along those lines when referring to the title of the song.

Just go through the list of links from the reviews for the album to find what I mean. Maybe this is making something out of nothing, but common sense tells the listener that the song contains a double meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.87.149 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't use youtube as a source. Still, I'm not disputing that it could sound like that, it's just that we have no proof that was the intent when the song was created. — Realist  2  23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am wondering who's work is this video. Maybe we can cite it instead of youtube. --Efe (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the professional review for The Independent states that the song's title does mean F-U-C-K Me, its not coincidental at all. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's still an opinion or interpretation of the lyrics and sound. I'm sure we can find a source that categorically confirms it—these would be a production detail, fro the people who made the album. — Realist  2  04:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But, we can actually add them, some sort of interpretation of the title, as long as the source is reliable. This song is likely to create a buzz. --Efe (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely, so long as it's made perfectly clear that it's just an interpretation. However I image at some point we will get a source from the people who made the record. Frankly I thought "Unusual You" would have been a better 3rd single :D — Realist  2  06:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully they will speak up about the record. --Efe (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone heard the radio edit yet? "if u" is edited out so all you hear now is "seek Amy". I agree with Realist though, "Unusual You" is much better. Xamkou (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that will also be reported soon. Keep an eye out on Google News. — Realist  2  16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

MTV UK reported that Spears will re-recorded a "new version" of the song: Britney Spears will rename her next single after claims the explicit song could be banned. The track was called If You Seek Amy- say it fast and it’s certainly and interesting invite. But now she’s changed one letter to keep radio stations in the US happy- it's now titled "If You See Amy."  Sparks   Fly  15:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Critical response
Hi all, the section on the critical response seems to include all the reviews that are tehre for the album, not the single. As is seen before, album reviews of a song differs from single reviews, should we keep those reviews or remove them and wait till the single reviews come out? &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Unusual you would have been a really cool single, but then again, If U Seek Amy, with its interpretaion, rocks!! :-)
 * No comments from album reviews are perfectly acceptable. The more reputable reviewers don't review singles. — Realist  2  04:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If U Seek Amy or If U See Amy?
Which title should be used? I think the first one is fine since that ban is only in the US. But shall we wait and see whether its the same thing in other countries? &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the same as Snoop Dogg's "Sexual Eruption", so we should do the same: the article's title should be If U Seek Amy and we should mention the alternate lyrics, maybe in the lead section. Something like this:

"If U Seek Amy" (also known by the censored version title "If U See Amy" is (...)  Sparks   Fly  15:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The song is originally called "If U Seek Amy." The only reason they had to drop the "k" is because some overprotective parents are trying to censor private radio broadcasting. If you don't like it, don't listen to it, but don't infringe on other people's right to hear it. I think a critical analysis should be added to the article that could explain exactly who is behind these censoring measures and on what constitutional basis are they limiting free speech, especially when it concerns private radio, not publicly funded broadcasting. - Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.29.68 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Music Video
Please correct this, the English is poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 321lexingtona (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is not a reliable info. And the linked article doesn't say anything about Madonna.--Sakrileg (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. — Realist  2  00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why must sources be entered in a different language?

If you can't get an Enlgish translation please don't put it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheraymond (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to be in English. — R  2  04:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * then how would you know what it's saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.158.241 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here the translation of: http://www.teamworld.it/news/1314/britney-spears-if-u-seek-amy-nuovo-singolo.aspx "28/01/2009 - It's "If U Seek Amy" the new single by Britney Spears.

The song is the third excerpt from Album "Circus" after the successfull "Womanizer" and "Circus", which reconfirmed once again Britney as the one true Princess of Pop.

"If U Seek Amy" looks like a success and the video that will accompany the shot on 10 February.

A few weeks waiting then, but it is certainly well worth it.

Start your countdown along with members of the Official Italian Forum of Britney Spears!" --Smanu (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole Madonna, Justin part in the article made me laugh, but seriously some people need a life, oh and it says it sold over 100,000 downloads, i think not if someone could fix that, thanks. 89.100.221.196 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The reporter in the music video was spoofing a fox news reporter who got very angry over Britneys hidden message. You can see the clip on perez hiltons website. She said Britney's "lame code" haha.
 * Very true, but it needs to be noted by a third party source. — R  2  02:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I didnt see her "family" in the music video hide their faces. Maybe I didnt see something lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.162.253 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Downloads
It did sell over 100,000 downloads...

The music video will be directed by Jake Nava, who worked with Britney before on My Prerogative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipeedoardo (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC) If U Seek Amy music video comes exclusivly available on iTunes in Mid'March.

If it sold 100,000 downloads then put a source, that one beside it says something about parents being upset by the song, PROPER source please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Billboard is a very reliable source for the claim. — R  2  19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well what i'm saying is the source provided goes to an article about the parents being upset over the song, nothing about download there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't see the last paragraph of the article, my mistake i should of read it more clearly. Sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. — R  2  00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian Single Information
According to Britney's Australian label, If U Seek Amy, is being released 14 March 2009 with Circus (Joe Bermudez Radio Remix) and the Main Version of the song itself. It also claims it will be released on a 3-inch CD Single, different from the standard 5-inch CD Single.

It is from SonyB2B Australia, sadly I cannot give out a log in for all to see, but I will take a screencap if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRevolution7 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a screencap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.2.32 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

US Release
I just heard it on the radio an hour ago.... ---Shadow (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Music Video
Can someone add a source to where the info for the premiere is. And correct the english. 'It will have his premiere March 2nd' doesn't make sense.
 * DO NOT add a video premiere UNLESS the source you have is valid.

"If U See Amy" only in the US?
It's also censored in Australia. See the Facebook group here. I don't think you have to be signed in to see it but anyway it's a protest group started by someone in Australia. I've also heard a lot about it on the Aussie radio, and they also play the "censored" version. Either way, it's clearly not JUST a US release. I can't find anything definitive on Google about it, but the section should still be clarified. -- M PD T / C 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Until we have reliable sources (not facebook) that document censorship in Australia, it's just the US. — R  2  00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources that it's limited to the US. US stations threatened to ban the song, but there is nothing that says it's restricted to the US nor that it's "mandated" to the US.  Facebook's not a reliable source, I know, but the fact that the song is being played on Aussie radio negates the suggestion that it's limited to the States. -- M PD T / C 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the source says she did change it to If You 'see' Amy, in the US, but this was done voluntarily. — R  2  12:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

MPD T / C is right. In Australia, the 'If U See Amy' version is played during the day, whilst 'If U Seek Amy' is played in the evening.
 * Please find a reliable source for your comment. --Legolas!!  ( talk to me ) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any liable source for this, radio stations just went ahead and played the censored version. But I if I can find a source, I'll post.
 * No, none of those sources suggest that it's limited to the US. The sources say it was changed to make the US radio stations happy, which are not the same thing.  And the one source for the last line (sourch 12), has one minor section that says "But now she’s changed one letter to keep radio stations in the US happy- it’s now titled ‘If You See Amy.’", which does not appropriately source the line in the article "The "If U See Amy" version will only be released to US radio, with the music video and the international radio single being both "If U Seek Amy"."  I have a recording of an instance of the "censored" version on a Sydney (NSW) radio station, and then a second clip of a nationally-syndicated show talking about the change.  It's not officially censored, but it's being played, which still is contrary to the what the article says. -- M PD T / C 22:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that the censored version is only to US, MPD01605. The fact is that, until now, we don't have any reliable source that states a other country is using the "If You See Amy" version, besides US.  Sparks   Fly  22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, at the moment we only have confirmation it's affecting the US. — R  2  00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/mpd01605/3306915487 is that enough source?
 * Sorry, it must be mentioned in reliable third party sources. We can't accept images as sources. — R  2  00:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that it will played on worldwide radio stations as "If you see Amy", we should wait until it is released worldwide before putting it in the article and when we have reliable sources. Currently (as far as I'm aware), it is only released in USA and Australia. BritneysBetch (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's played on french radios as "if you seek amy". ;) Jenoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.114.45.233 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We need third party sources to document it, otherwise it can't be mentioned. — R  2  12:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the radio stations you listen to. Nova and 2day fm don't censor it as far as I know. But then again like MPD01605 said, they may play the censored version in the day and the original at night. I'm always listening to the radio at night. I usually listen online coz sometimes my actual cd player radio thingys reception is only average as far as quality goes. As far as that protest group in Australia goes, they need to get a life! If they don't like swearing then why do they choose to they even bother to associate with the song. Sad that they come from my country lol! On the Hot 30 Countdown I heard Tim and Bigzy talking about how the censor it in the US. They said that they are more casual about it and don't really care if it means "Fuck Me" Child Funk (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Live Performances
It should mention that it was performed live during her tour prior to its official release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

what?
if u seek amy has rose up the billboard charts take a look

HOT 100:[]

POP 100:[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.57.63 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — R  2  22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Britney Spears article says that If U Seek Amy peaked at 72 in the Hot 100 chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears_discography#Singles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.51.16.187 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Music video images
OMG, the second images of the music video is so creepy, she looks like The Exorcist --Smanu (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, lol - we should get another pic Tokeltel 16:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokeltel (talk • contribs)

Genre of the song (this is not only "pop"!)
I think "pop" doesn't definite well the song. It's not pop, it's electropop at least. Maybe to write "Electropop, dance-pop" or something like that would be better. -frank
 * We need reliable sources from a third party. — R  2  23:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this ok?: "Different than Martin's previous produced tracks for Spears, "If U Seek Amy" is an electro-pop dance song, in which even the lyrics shows a different, more dance-oriented Max Martin." from wikipedia, the Max Martin page -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Martin#Backstreet_Boys_and_Britney_Spears - frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.216.126 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we are not allowed to use other Wikipedia articles as sources. — R  2  02:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What about this? "A stomping dancefloor beat with building synths", from Billboard, http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/reviews-singles/if-u-seek-amy-1003956184.story (it's a kind of dance-pop song description) I just don't like to see this song only definited as "pop"! It's not a Celine Dion song. -frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.188.217 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears is a typical pop musician therefore this song is pop! If you look at the technics of this song then yes, you will discover other sub genres, but wouldn't you find that they are all somehow related to pop. Pop is a generalisation. Many songs contain many genres, sometimes we just have to keep it simple! --Child Funk (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely not Electro-pop. --Legolas  ( talk to me ) 05:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source stating other genres then go for it! Xamkou (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll find it, you'll see :) - frank
 * I'm not disagreeing with you, I believe it has other sub-genres but we can't state so until it's sourced. Slow poke   (talk)  16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Release dates
Why has the release date for the UK been changed to March 16, 2009? The digital download and physical releases are both due on May 4, 2009. It hasn't even begun to receive any radio/video airplay in the UK yet. Xamkou (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Censored in UK also
It has been receiving heavy airplay on UK music channels and the title of the song has been censored to IF U See Amy, as well as the 'kay' sound removed from the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.187.72 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we need sources. 15:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)— R  2

if it helps ive jsut seen it on chart show lol, it was deifnaltey if u see amy because i was screaming for about half an hour after (Toxicbomb2004 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

got a source guys http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm98/toxicbomb2004/DSCF1840.jpg i took it on my camera about half an hour ago (Toxicbomb2004 (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks, but again, third party sources must mention it, otherwise it lacks notability and can't be mentioned. — R  2  00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got a source from galaxy radio playlist. http://www.galaxyyorkshire.co.uk/playlist-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.7.7 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one playlist and since it's not a third party source mentioning the censorship, it fails to meet the notability requirements. — R  2  18:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Rock Boy" as Australian B-side
Source, please!!! Heidijo236 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the B-side thing since it's unsourced. — R  2  18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Music Video Picture
Im sorry I know this is stupid to be saying. The music video picture needs to be changed. It looks like she is going to actually kill someone. Plus the lighting in it sucks. --Spiderman2351 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Spiderman2351

Radio Edit
The radio edit I have heard says "All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to ... seek Amy." Should this be included? 98.27.131.215 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if third party sourced mention it. — R  2  20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on YouTube... lol I didn't research. 98.27.131.215 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloat
What is the need for having "it was going to be filmed on date x but was instead filmed on date x+2"? Relevance? --86.41.134.221 (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not bloated. We are not a paper encyclopedia and allow in depth detail. — R  2  21:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that in depth detail is allowed but here it is totally unnecessary. What is the use of knowing the planned start date for filming of the "If U Seek Amy" video? I don't know why you're persisting in attacking me on this issue. I'm a casual user and I just want to make wikipedia better, and regular editors such as yourself are making my life impossible.--86.41.134.221 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If no-one has any objections, I will be removing this detail: "The music video was originally planned to begin shooting on February 10, 2009, but instead began filming on February 7, 2009" tomorrow. Please make your case for including it below.--86.41.134.221 (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to attain consensus, which involves waiting a few days at the very least. — R  2  22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, he wasn't attacking you. While it may not be the most important point in the article, it is still a fact about the music video and has a right to be included in the entry.  Hpswimmer (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Hpswimmer. Yes, it is a fact about the music video. But if we include this fact, where does it end? One might argue for referencing the company which supplied the costumes. Referencing who oversaw the lighting for the video. Referencing how long the editing process took. Referencing when Britney Spears went for tea breaks. I am of course, taking your argument to an absurd and illogical conclusion, but I feel that's your position on the matter - absurd and illogical. Including that "The music video was originally planned to begin shooting on February 10, 2009, but instead began filming on February 7, 2009" adds nothing of value to the article. Try reading the section without this fact. It reads just as well, and a sentence shorter. This is what we must strive for.--86.41.148.117 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You just removed the content without consensus, so I have reverted you. Familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. Where does the fact adding end? There is no limit, so long as you can source it. — R  2  00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be better if we reworded the sentence to take the emphasis off the fact that the shoot date was changed? A suggestion would be "The music video, originally expected to begin shotting on February 10, 2009, began filming on February 7, 2009."  This allows the reader to see the most important information more clearly, but still includes the fact that the date was changed...Hpswimmer (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if you don't agree that this the mention of the original date for starting filming is bloat, it's certainly RECENTISM - "Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention. " WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT!?--86.41.146.111 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that would be relevant to a biography of a 70 year old actor and dedicating 3 paragraphs to something that happened to him last week. Here, we are dealing with a very specific topic, this song. The song has only been out a few weeks. It's all "recent". Recentism is generally only relevant to articles that span a long period of time. A single generally only has a short time frame. Once the song has been produced, released and charted that is it. — R  2  23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done, give an incredibly specific example of recentism that is completely different to the article in question to obscure the argument. You're the worst type of wikipedia editor.--86.41.146.111 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You really can't use a recentism argument on an article that has a live span period of 18 months, from production to it's decent off the charts. The content goes from old to new at the same time. Also, no more personal attacks or your blocked. — R  2  14:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, Realist2. Your right. Knot. --86.41.146.111 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) — R  2  00:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only reporting what I heard on a discussion page just so you know: "Fuck you Realist 2; you are made of poo!" That's what I heard. I don't agree with whoever said it but I thought i'd mention it. --Muddychild (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How come when I edit something that I deem not to be of encyclopedic value, Realist2 reverts, calls it going against consensus, stuff like this: removing bloat, imho - BUT when Realist2 judges something not to be of encyclopedic value, he/she doesn't have to find any consensus, and just does something like THIS:hypocrisy--86.41.143.219 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I removed that information per WP:CHARTS. — R  2  18:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed a screenshot due to WP:CHARTS? It doesn't have anything about ithere --83.70.109.76 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, the image was removed because of copy right reasons. We can only use music videos under a fair use rational. That particular image did not aid the reader sufficiently (there are much better stills available) thus we could not use it. If the image was free it wouldn't have been a problem. — R  2  18:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If what you're saying now is true fine - but I don't think it is. You said then "that image is not of any encyclopedic value". If you want to equivocate on the point, fine.--83.70.109.76 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm really glad this situation has been rectified. :) --213.94.238.160 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Censored in Ireland
Can someone add that its been censored in Ireland also (tv and radio)
 * Only if it receives coverage in third party sources. — R  2  20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I find a source that says that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.127.86 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Look on the internet and post the link here. If we want find a source it can't go in the article. — R  2  20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well its been censored on mtv.co.uk so can you at least add that its been censored on uk tv? link http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/britney-spears/news/104469-watch-britney-spears-new-music-video-if-u-seek-amy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.127.86 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The choice to censor it on one website might not represent the policy thought all the UK or even a large portion of it. — R  2  20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well can you say that MTV UK has censored the video? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.127.86 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't discuss individual companies, particularly if it's just the website of a company. Sorry, it lacks notability. — R  2  21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

'We don't discuss individual companies'. Censorship like this is always by certain companies. It is hardly going to be Gordon Brown deciding to censor it, is it? Sweetie candykim (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

UK censoring
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/

Song is now simply called "Amy" on UK radio.

And they completely cut out the "All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to if you seek Amy" line. Other UK radio stations are beginning to play this edit in the UK now too so I'll keep an eye out for an article we can use to source it. Slow poke  (talk)  15:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haUEhXNAYfA

i know you cant use it as source but thought you couldb all listen (90.194.164.176 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks and yes, that is the edit that's being used on UK radio. It's just as shame that no articles have been published regarding it. Slow poke   (talk)  20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i dont have a clue wather you can use this as a source? http://britneyspearsblackout.com/?p=10456 (90.194.164.176 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
 * No source, but thanks for trying. — R  2  01:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This change I made is properly and appropriately sourced, and the sources are reliable (wire networks and major newspaper).  I also clarified the first quote about the 5 and 7 year olds, as while the Rolling Stone did report it, the attribution should go to the original source (which is linked to from Rolling Stone).  I'll keep looking around for more sources.  -- M PD T / C 21:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I renamed the section to more appropriately reflect the contents. -- M PD T / C 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

video info
Can anyone tell me why having the date filming was supposed to begin would be useful to anyone? Why it would be of interest to anyone? Instead of it should be --159.134.99.123 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The music video was initially planned to begin shooting on February 10, 2009, but instead began filming on February 7, 2009.
 * The music video began filming on February 7, 2009.


 * Well from what I've seen, the source itself says the initial shooting date was to be the 10th, but was changed to the 7th. However, I do agree that there's nothing wrong with simply adding "The music video began filming on February 7, 2009". Stating the day it was supposed to be shot, versus the day it was shot, isn't relevant in this case, considering the fact that it's only a 3 day time period to begin with. If it were a 3 month time period, it would be a different story and would indeed be notable, but the only way "The music video was initially planned to begin shooting on February 10, 2009, but instead began filming on February 7, 2009" is relevant at all is because it's actually stated in the source itself, however I find there's nothing wrong with a bit of re-wording (or, rather, "de-wording") in this particular case, so long as the main point (the video being shot on the 7th) is made clear. Percxyz (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Initial music video shooting date...
Note: this section is mainly directed toward Realist 2 (in a civil way, of course), however I want to keep this discussion on this talk page, as it does correlate with both the 'Bloat' and 'video info' sections of this page. More importantly, however, other editors are strongly encouraged to bring their unbiased thoughts and opinions to this matter.

Now I'm just going to skip to the point - regarding your reversion of my edit and your edit summary, Realist 2. As far as the debate not being over by a ‘long mile’ is concerned, I find that to be highly inaccurate, as the debate ended approximately two weeks ago on April 29. And since there's no set amount of time an issue has to be debated, considering the fact that this is no longer being discussed, one would assume that the debate is over. The debate is this: should the beginning sentence of the Music Video section read -

The music video was initially planned to begin shooting on February 10, 2009, but instead began filming on February 7, 2009.

Or...

Filming for the video began on February 7, 2009, and was directed by Jake Nava, who previously worked with Spears for her 2004 music video "My Prerogative".

Since the end of April, there have been no other discussions regarding this matter, therefore it's impossible that a debate is still going on about this, as there's no such thing as a "silent" debate. The matter was brought up again one week later on May 5th - which is the day it came to my attention - which is when I decided to change the section (as I have every right, as a fellow Wikipedian, to do so, as information in articles is not set in stone, and therefore other editors will come along and change material as long as it's in a way that improves the article), which is what myself and (originally) 86.41.134.221 did. I fully explained myself on the talk page as to why stating the original shoot date here was unnecessary because a 3 day time period isn't notable, unlike 3 weeks or 3 months, and I changed the sentence in that section. Nobody disagreed with it, therefore one would assume consensus was already reached. The edit I made to the Music Video section in this article is in no way damaging or noncontributing to the article, and in no way was it so controversial that it even remotely requires consensus. One does not initially need to attain consensus when editing an article; consensus is only needed when other editors disagree with another person's edit; that editor being you, Realist 2. However, I find that you yourself did not provide a clear and specific reason as to why both my edit and 86.41.134.221’s edit was reverted, except for "consensus being needed". You didn't explain why you felt consensus was needed for this situation, nor did you explain why you thought mine or his edit deems unnecessary to the article; however we both fully and thoroughly explained why stating the initial shoot date for the music video was not necessary. Seeing as how you're the only editor here who has an issue with this, I believe the burden is on you to provide why you think this edit DOES deem unnecessary. If an editor has a problem with a piece of material on Wikipedia, is it not up to that editor to state his case as to why he has a problem with it? "Consensus is needed" alone is not a valid reason for reverting somebody's edit; you need to go further than that and clearly explain why their edit was reverted, and/or why you feel consensus is needed. You simply didn't do that, not with 86.41.134.221, and not with myself, and I'm sorry but it's only proper you state your case with this.

Bottom line, when it comes down to the matter of reaching consensus here, as far as I’m concerned, I am the consensus. First of all, this isn’t an issue that requires the attention and consensus of a lot of editors - nor will it get that kind of attention, as the issue is not only minor to begin with, but there are only two editors here who have continuously debated about this - yourself, Realist 2, and 86.41.134.221. Clearly an unbiased third opinion was needed here in determining how the section should read. I was that third opinion. After reading everything on the talk page regarding this matter, I came to the conclusion that it should read like this, instead of this. For 5 days, there wasn't a single rejection of this edit. You have now reverted TWO editors' edits regarding this, with no valid reasoning except for 'consensus not being reached'. However, from what I've seen within the past week, consensus was reached and the issue was dropped several days ago. Considering the fact that, since the time I edited the section, you've edited the article 6 times within a 4 day time period 'without' reverting my edit, I don't know why you're just now (after 5 days) reverting this. There are no 'set' amount of editors that need to be included in reaching consensus, nor a set amount of time that needs to go by before consensus is reached. Consensus is based on 'participating' editors partaking in discussion about certain aspects of an article, and coming to a conclusion with valid arguments and reasons. Consensus discussions are used to convince others of one's reasoning behind an edit - with actual reasons. And in this case, 86.41.134.221's argument convinced me that citing the original shoot date for the video was not needed. He gave a valid reason as to why this bit of information is not needed, and another editor (myself) agreed with this argument, and I additionally stated why I agreed with it. Now I’m not sure what ‘more’ consensus you need, but based on the fact that there are no active arguments regarding this, no specifically explained rejections of this edit, along with the fact that not one, but two editors have already provided clear, thorough and reasonable explanations as to why stating the initial shoot date of the music video in this article is irrelevant and non-notable to the article, consensus has already been reached.

I understand completely that consensus is not in numbers, and this is in no way a "two against one" situation. I'm not saying that because two editors agree with this, that it should be. I'm saying that two editors have provided clear of examples of why it should be, with no real counterarguments regarding otherwise. I think at this point, Realist 2, since you're the only one who has a problem with this edit, it's up to you to explain why and attain consensus for reverting it back to the way it was. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 15:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Circus has rose up the swiss chart take a look

Swiss Singles Top 100:

If U Seek Amy is #1 in Brazil
http://top40-charts.com/chart.php?cid=8

^ There is the link. It is #1 on the Brazillian Singles Chart. This was in the article previously, but for some reason was removed; now it should be added again.
 * See WP:CHARTS, the link is unreliable. — Please comment  R  2  17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It was also put on britney.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.232.178 (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Swearing
It's very hard to hear by just normally listening to the song but after the chorus, at the same time that she says "love me, hate me" there is a guy in the background that says f**k me, f**k me. I used an application audacity to play only that part over, then I could hear it clearly, should that be added in the article? Pikiwyn (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Musical Structure
According to this: http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0074460 her vocal range spans from G3-C5, I think this could be added to the article. Skinwalker03 (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)