Talk:Justin Bieber/Archive 5

Poll regarding Bieber's image in America
I see my added content regarding Bieber's image in America at the time of May 2013 has been reverted. Here is the content: Back in May 2013, a poll by Public Policy Polling found that Bieber's favorability ratings among Americans were 20% positive and 54% negative, and that he was the only artist in the poll who had a majority unfavorability rating across all party lines, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents. First reverted by Drmies: ''a poll regarding his image: trivial. we have way too much trivia already I reverted that with might I point out WP:TRIVIAL goes to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Info has reliable sec src. even if there is "too much trivia", why didn't you target the other trivia? Secondly reverted by Moxy WOW just wow horrible grade 2 addiction...this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid. Need more adults looking over this please!!'' - and Moxy, lay off your "horrible grade 2 addiction" personal attacks, which is further amplified by your insinuation that there is a lack of "adults" here, so what are you calling everyone editing the article now? starship.paint (talk &#124; ctrb) 06:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I originally added the content to the Style, image and fans section. This content follows WP:WELLKNOWN: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative. Relevant? This is regarding Bieber's public image in America, his country of residence, that's how its relevant. Well documented? Other than the LA Times source I added, it has also been covered by TIME magazine, US News, Huffington Post etc. Noteworthy? Keep in mind, this poll was done in May 2013, even before his arrests. The reliable sources also focused on the information that out of the eight artists (Adele, Bieber, Beyonce, Brown, Jay-Z, Timberlake, Gaga, or Rihanna) only Bieber was 'universally' disliked by a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 06:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So what? Our job is to compile important factual information about our subjects, not to feed the frenzy. From the facts we present our readers can make up heir own minds. We don't need to know what they think. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? So we know what his public image is. That would go in the image section. Is this poll not proof of Bieber's image in America? starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Perhaps not. But to me it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See "WP:Unencyclopedic", it is an empty argument. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, can you imagine it being included in Encyclopædia Britannica? HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the Bieber article in Encyclopædia Britannica had a sub-section for his image, then yes, I think it would be. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * you linked an essay, of which the subject is article deletion. Decisions about what information to include about a notable subject are judged differently. "Unencyclopedic," aka "not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia" is a completely valid rationale. VQuakr (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry VQuakr, was I wrong to link to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, of which "Just unencyclopedic" is a sub-section? It's not that "unencyclopedic" is invalid, it's that there was no justification at all for the argument. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's that there was no justification at all for the argument. If you are going to convince anyone of this, you will need to provide a reason rather than just contradiction. You presented verifiable information (a poll), and other editors (3 so far if you do not count me) noted that it seemed too tabloid-ey. It seems to me that you need to spend a little more time on constructive talk page edits less time on edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I believe I both reverted and discussed. See my above comments at 06:50, 9 February 2014 and 07:00, 9 February 2014. I'm not sure how to argue on "tabloid-ey"ness - I prefer to argue on its relevancy, noteworthiness and documentation - which I have done so above. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The history tab is public; you re-inserted the same content (edit warred) at 6:12 before attempting any discussion. In any case, it sounds like four other editors (counting myself in that group now, having considered it) generally agree that this content should not be included in the article when considering our mandate to write responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. Is an RfC really needed? VQuakr (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the timeline here. First, Drmies removes my edit on the poll saying rm a poll regarding his image: trivial. we have way too much trivia already Yes, I reverted at 06:12 saying might I point out WP:TRIVIAL goes to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Info has reliable sec src. even if there is "too much trivia", why didn't you target the other trivia? Then, Moxy removes it again, but seeing as there was more opposition, I started a discussion on the talk page. You can demonize me for the single revert I made on 06:12 - all I did was, when Drmies did not link to policy, simply stating trivia, I reverted with the edit summary that WP:TRIVIAL by itself is not a good standalone argument. It's not as if I reverted thrice, and only after that started an issue on the talk page. And why an RfC is needed, it's because Moxy appears to want to remove the whole legal issues section including his charges, not only the content regarding the poll. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The three revert rule is a bright-line limit, not an entitlement. "rm a poll regarding his image: trivial. we have way too much trivia already" is a completely valid edit summary, and you edit warred by putting the edit back in while misquoting the previous edit summary (and making an error regarding where WP:TRIVIAL redirects in the process). In any case, there is a pretty clear consensus not to include this poll, so I suggest we move on. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Time for an RfC on all this shit again. I have removed the section that clearly does not have consensus as seen above. Cant believe for the 10th time we have to do this. Will set this up tommorow so its not done in the middle of the night..as we want experienced editors to comment.-- Moxy (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead with the RfC. I see you have not stopped with your jibes. Would you like your content to be labelled as "all this shit"? And instead of saying adults you tweak to "older editors" / "experienced editors". I dare say experienced editors have already made their comments on this issue. Dr. Blofeld and Werldwayd are two for example. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What you have said does not change the fact many have raised concerns about the content be it they or me calling it "kids stuff"  etc... Best we get more involved ...also lets try and keep the walls of text to a minimum. I see that this has been reverted again... O well will just have to wait..concerning that the last RfC on the section is being ignored again. A question Starship.paint .. do you really believe random polls have a place here in reference works (what a encyclopaedia is) -- in other words have other's complained  about this on other articles?.  -- Moxy (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny you ask for less text but proceed to post a reply longer than my earlier post. Many have raised concerns about the content yes, but also a significant number of editors have come out in support of the content. I don't believe that this particular poll on Bieber is "random", and I think that as long as this article has an specific section on Bieber's image, that poll is relevant and belongs in there. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are aware that the last BLPN  on  January 3, 2014 got it removed and page locked ...as have all the other BLPN in the past. This fact and the fact many have a concern here again demonstrates to all there is  clearly no consensus. Even had a BLPN  just on the flag thing.-- Moxy (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not aware of that. So was it a previous BLP/N discussion, or a previous RfC? dame all back again even had a RfC on the section before Might I state my opinion that BLP/N discussions will tend to have numerous proponents of BLP possibly skewing responses. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Might I also point out that during that previous BLP/N discussion on January 3, Bieber had not been arrested even once yet. Now that he has, a lot of his past "troubles" become more relevant and notable. So that previous discussion is unfortunately outdated. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep will have to have a new talk (as has been mentioned many times now)...just would be nice if our editors could follow our basic conduct expectations instead of many edit warning with many others over and over. We should not have to lookup this article so often...ever time he makes the news. The behaviour here is an example of what we dont want to see. How many have to revert before this is clear.... ten more times? This does not look good at all for many   -- Moxy (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh please, judging by your most recent edits to this article, I don't think you have any business getting on a high horse. I'm not sure how I have broken the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - in fact I believe that is exactly what I have done. I also believe that a majority of the article's content is backed by news reports - naturally content will be added when he makes the news. However there's no need to reply - concentrate on your RfC please. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I bet you dont want a reply to that and my few edits. Because we can all see this shit people  have causes - There have been reverts almost everyday since the 25th of January by many editors. This behaviour is not what we are looking for in our editors - in fact its embarrassing for us all.  Even  supporters have a problem with portions of the edits and keep having to fix them over and over and over. Do you really think edit waring in the content that has already been discussed and rejected is a good idea ...  most think not and is why we have rules to prevent such things. So will set up an RfC later today getting more involved. Elvis is a great example here... see any shitty news stuff or even a source from the news there....please  dont base articles on news stories that are ongoing and will be dead links in 2 weeks time. All we need to say is hes had legal trouble over the past few years ranging from vandalism to  DUI charges. Dont need to report the guess work or make the items stand-out in there own section when it can be set in a normal section (again we have policies for this). Also why do we need 8 sources all regurgitating the same thing for one statement... news spam and major link rot to come is again not helpful.   -- Moxy (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep alluding that I am guilty of "embarrassing" behavior, but you seem to ignore the fact that you, Moxy, are guilty of multiple reverts yourself. If you weren't, perhaps you would be better positioned to comment. What's more, your edit summaries while removing the content are inflammatory: WOW just wow horrible grade 2 addiction...this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid. Need more adults looking over this please!!) and NO best we "err on the side of caution" Was there any point to the caps lock? Also, perhaps eight sources I needed so people can actually realize how much coverage of Bieber's legal issues are happening in reliable sources. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected
This article has been fully protected for a month. The last time it was fully protected, there was very little discussion. I'd like to hope that this time, given it's locked for a month, there will be some discussion over the topics that have been causing edit wars lately. Whether it be through an RfC, continued discussions here, a straw poll, etc, some consensus' have to be reached. Otherwise, nobody will be editing here until March 10th.  Gloss •  talk  01:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes best we lock it up for now as there is no dead line for anything. Making a Rfc now...see below in a few minutes. -- Moxy (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Jack Whitehall
Then - in February - Justin Bieber came to this island and within four days we broke the fucker

No, I don't think there's any need to post a poll. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk *

Justin Bieber in popular culture
FYI - there's this: Justin Bieber in popular culture. Merge? AfD? Talk amongst yourselves, as I slowly walk away pretending I am not involved in anything Bieber-related ;) -- Y not? 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominated it for AfD. Someone has previously tried having it deleted but they were reverted so an AfD discussion should take care of it.  Gloss •  talk  06:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Twitter
I'm wondering why Twitter has it's own section on this page when the most of what I read isn't really note worthy. Can some admin take a look? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is the byproduct of the unfortunate fact that there was once an article on this nonsense, thankfully deleted. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's disgraceful. Fans. I swear. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Legal Issue citation overkill
In the Legal issues section, there are 2 sentences that have 8 references a piece. Per WP:OVERCITE, could we trim this down? LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. 2 is generally fully sufficient for any claim. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While that's what would generally be acceptable, there is so much dispute/edit war over this crap, a few more is definitely not WP:OVERCITE; especially in this circumstance. -- Cy be r XR ef ☎ 21:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure each claim only had about 2-3 references originally. Some editors removed some content and left the references in, so the references piled up to 8 and then the article was locked, that's why there's overkill now. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, do you feel the "vomit" bit belongs in a BLP? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Short answer, no. To elaborate, it's not really relevant to Bieber's personal life unless the incident actually caused him to turn vegan. If he turned vegan the info could stay. It would be more suited for the music career section, but... it's not noteworthy either, because it appears to be a one-off incident that didn't have significant consequences. Pending further information being brought up, the current info should be at least trimmed (if not deleted) and sent to the music career section... "Bieber vomited on stage in September 2012, which he attributed to milk", everything else should be cut. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 February 2014
The photo in the infobox is huge. Needs to be made smaller. Number10a (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Number10a (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The template change which caused major breakage across articles has been fixed. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of new category
Why doesn't this article is not included in the Category:Internet celebrities?-- Jos   eph   09:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Categorisation of people has many problems - his current notability may have been sparked by some Internet videos, but his primary notability is as an entertainer in traditional venues, and not just the Internet. If we listed everyone who has been on the Internet in any presentation, we would have just about everyone in that group, including Queen Elizabeth II. Collect (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth Berkley was my Queen of the Internet for a while. I'm sure I wasn't the only one tying up the phone line. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Article feedback
I have disabled the Article Feedback Tool on this page. Per WP:BLP, we are obliged to cite everything that has even the possibility of being controversial. Lots of what readers are commenting on in AFT, like arrests, legal issues, height, etc., need to be reliably documented in sources in order to be added into the article. The article is also currently fully protected, so editors will have a slow time implementing the rare helpful reader recommendations that come through. We don't want to have a prominent link at the top of the article pointing to unverifiable and undue criticisms about Bieber. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

RIAA Diamond Award
The BLP currently says Bieber did not get a RIAA Diamond award -- which would be news to the RIAA. Dunno how the weird blurb for Psy and Gangnam got into this BLP (he has no RIAA Diamond award per RIAA official site), but it well ought to be removed. Collect (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch, Collect. It appears it came from this edit in November (by an editor who in the past had been warned about adding false certifications to articles). Is there any objection to me editing through the full protection to remove it? Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And give Bieber the award which he actually did get as well . Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 01:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks all. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My bad
I just found out on my own (through the log page for my account) that when I clicked the "Enable feedback" link I enabled it for some people other than myself. I thought it only did that for me! So I apologize for that. I didn't even know I could do that! Jesant13 (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Needs a "Criticism" section
Needs a "Criticism" section, he's been ridiculed for his behavior, some consider a bad influence on youth, and criticised for frequent vioations of the law. It's all over the media.Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that Wikipedia has specific policies regarding biographies, and something "being all over the media" is not one of the chief criteria. Collect (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - whether to include such information is already being debated on this very page at this section within the RfC above, but we're not exactly starting a whole criticism section, his legal problems go under his personal life. Other views on his image so under the image section. Maybe you could respond as to what you would like included? starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems appropriate for the "Style, image and fans" section. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No BLP, and likely no biography should have a criticism section, notable criticism should be appropriately placed in the sections where it belongs. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Criticism sections simply provide a platform for those with different views to strut their stuff. They rarely attract good encyclopaedic content. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Education
Is there any information about his education? Did he finish school? What school? If not, when did he drop out? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I found out that he's graduated from a high school. See this source. Where do you think the information should go? Early life? Personal life? starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 23:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Behaviour and legal issues
To what extent should we cover Justin Bieber behaviour and legal issues that have been covered by major news media the past few years (as outlined here and here). Secondly should we give the results of polls on what people think of him and the petition to deport Bieber? So what should be included or excluded if anything at all is what we are looking for comments on. Bellow in the quotes can be-found the content that is contested with sources.
 * 1) How much detail should be given to legal problems?
 * 2) Does the legal problems  warrant a separate section?
 * 3) Should we include public polls?
 * 4) Should we include the White House deportation petition?
 * -- Moxy (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Overview
Let me explain how we are here... recently there have been some edit wars over the fact there should/or should not be detailed information and a sub section on his behaviour and legal issues ranging from vandalism to DUI arrest (again as outlined here and  here) and should we include the White House deportation petition and public poll. The article has been locked-up till March 10th - thus we all have lots of time to work all this out. (Note: all users from previous discussions on these topics have been notified of this RfC)

There is 2 sides to the argument those that wish to report events with details  and  those that think most events have no place in a BIO in detail and/or at all.

Policies and essays people have been quoting thus far:
 * For inclusion - WP:RS, WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:EFFECT, WP:BLPCRIME,  WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC (essay) and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (essay)
 * For exclusion - WP:BALASPS, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTDIARY, WP:TRIVIAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and  WP:NOTEVERYTHING


 * Note the article as of right now has more source then bellow:

Point-by-point survey
To be explicit on what to include and what not to include, I have separated the content (taking into account some of the edit by InedibleHulk) into points. Please post on whether you would support inclusion of each piece of information for the article. If you wish to further trim you have to elaborate. This will be tedious, but it will be very clear. starship.paint (talk &#124; ctrb) 13:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay since Precision123 missed the point-by-point survey but posted in the "general" survey, I'm moving this whole "Point-by-point survey" section up so people will see it first. I believe I have notified all users who have already posted in this RfC (JimeoWan on fr.wiki) about this starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 05:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please post your responses in the Responses to above points section just below the 15th point that Purplewowies created. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Bieber has had several run-ins with the law around the world before his first arrest in 2014.


 * 2) In 2013, Bieber was charged in Brazil with vandalism; and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities.


 * 3) Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.


 * 4) Police in Detroit and Stockholm each raided Bieber's tour buses in 2013 while Bieber was not present;. They found marijuana in Detroit, and unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in Stockholm.


 * 5) Nine days before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested his friend Lil Za for cocaine possession.


 * 6) On January 23, 2014, Bieber was arrested in Miami Beach, on suspicion of driving under the influence, driving with an (over six month) expired licence and resisting arrest without violence.


 * 7) According to police, he was driving a Lamborghini and R&B singer Khalil, who was also arrested, was driving a Ferrari.


 * 8) Bieber was released on a $2,500 bond.


 * 9) A toxicology report revealed Bieber had THC (a component in marijuana) and the anti-anxiety medication Xanax alprazolam in his system when arrested.


 * 10) On January 29, Bieber surrendered to Toronto police, who charged him with assaulting a limousine driver in Toronto on December 30, 2013.


 * 11) It was reported that during a private flight on January 31, Bieber, his father and entourage filled the plane with so much marijuana smoke that that the pilots had to don oxygen masks.


 * 12) Back in May 2013, a poll by Public Policy Polling found that Bieber's favorability ratings among Americans were 20% positive and 54% negative,


 * 13) and that he was the only artist in the poll who had a majority unfavorability rating across all party lines, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents.


 * 14) In late January 2014, Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by a petition created on the White House's website which described Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations (sic) youth" thus calling for Bieber to be deported.


 * 15) The petition attracted over 200,000 signatures, becoming the most popular of all open White House petitions within days.

Responses to above points

 * I say 7, 12, and 13 don't really merit inclusion (unless the latter two have been covered in several sources). The rest I will need to address later. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For 12 and 13, reference 29 above by the Los Angeles Times is one source. Here's other sources by Huffington Post, National Post and CNS News. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For 7, I think "Lamborghini" and "Ferrari" can go, but his friend Khalil being arrested too is still notable - look at the other incidents involving his friends / entourage. For 8, released on bond is notable but "$2,500" can go. 13 can possibly go, but it's also a point for noteworthiness of the poll. All the rest not mentioned, I support inclusion. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 06:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for breaking this down for us. I agree with about 7 and 8. I do not believe 12 or 13 merit inclusion. I am borderline about 3 and 5; I think this would depend on their treatment by reliable secondary sources. I support inclusion for the rest. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Precision123. There is really no doubt about reliable secondary sources for any of these points. For point 3, see reference 5 by BBC, reference 7 (ABC News) and reference 16 (Associated Press). For point 5, see reference 16 again, reference 4 (BBC) and reference 8 (LA Times). Keep in mind, these sources were not written when the incidents happened. They were all written at the time of his first arrest (last month) whereas the incidents have happened from back in 2012, 2013 and nine days before his first arrest. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . In that case I have no problem with inclusion of those. I think the poll is a bit too "recent" (WP:RECENT), and I generally agree with you on the other points mentioned. --Precision123 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- this is not how discussions normally occur for BLPs and I decline to play a game here -- the point is that the BLP is so filled with cruft that it became an example to the world of what not to have in a BLP. Cheers -- but do not expect me to contribute to the "wall of text" discussion now or ever. Collect (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree this tabloid stuff and random polls is not what a real adult encyclopaedia would have. But there is not much we can do here as the younger people interested in him come from a generation of celebrity news. Lucky for Elvis he was around long before daily celeb news....he had much worst with legal problems, drugs and the ladies...but at the time news did not care...there was no TMZ to follow him around all day. Just imagen the section that could be on MJ and his drug problems. Its discouraging to say the least that we have editors that push for this stuff but al least the majority thus far see the random polls are BS.-- Moxy (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Moxy, please stop with the "real adult encyclopaedia" shtick. Thanks. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 06:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 13 is especially meaningless. 7 is trivial. 12 has some significance. The rest seem ok.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to summarize our views, here are the ones that look like they are not getting support for inclusion: 7 (except for maybe what proposed to salvage) & 13. Points 8 & 12 have a minimal/mixed level of support for inclusion; it looks like most people do not feel too strongly one way or the other. So we can continue from there. --Precision123 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this is a bio, I don't see the relevance of including a detailed chronological order of events which are better suited in a tabloid rather than on WP. Maybe a paragraph summarizing the highlights of his top most newsworthy escapades, but I wouldn't go into detail.  Reserve his pages for life changing events, and things that actually have meaning in defining who he is as a talent.  Atsme (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Atsme, it's already a summary. The least notable brushes with the law have already been omitted, these are the most notable ones. He's really done much more "controversial" stuff than is being discussed here. Also, what's wrong with chronological? His musical career is certainly chronological. Points 2-3-4 above are not chronological. 5-11 are chronological because many legal issues have cropped up within roughly 14-16 days. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know the details of each story, but I'd say 3, 7, 9, 11, 13 feel more or less superfluous, and 14's wording makes it take the petition too seriously. But I didn't take the time to check how each fact matches the different policies, things are getting too bureaucratic for me over here. --JimeoWan (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't care in reality, just be sensible with what is included and avoid the really trivial tabloid stuff.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1-10 should be included. The rest should only be included with high-quality sources, ideally a national newspaper or the like.  Andrew327 10:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User Starship.paint should be complemented for his efforts. Actually Justin Bieber page on Wikipedia is consulted quite often, so our coverage needs to be seen as definitive of what is relevant and what is not. Sadly recently people are more interested in his run-ins with the law everywhere to the point of becoming an epidemic. I don't know how much of it is staged for keeping media talking about him and how much is real problems he is suffering from. For me 1 is absolutely crucial to include. 2. Only vandalism in Brazil as he was charged on this. Australian and Colombian authorities being upset is not relevant. Exclude any mention. 3. Complaints about reckless driving are relevant. Also mention something about the egg throwing on a neighbour. It ties in well in this. 4. No need. No charges were laid. If later on Sweden and Detroit authorities do press charges, then include. Or else just ignore. 5. Include fully. Very relevant 6. Include fully. Word for word. 7. Very relevant. But include only "R&B singer Khalil was also arrested". No need for car marks. 8. Include 9. Include with all details of drugs in his system. 10. Include 100%. He was properly charged. He is appearing in court. 11. Don't include. probably an exaggeration. No legal consequences. Why is the father mentioned anyway. Just irrelevant. remove all. 12. No no no. Remove completely. Other surveys say his popularity was not drastically effected, but that he gained more following and attention -- The Miley Cyrus syndrome. 13. This is a lot of bull. What does that have to do with Republicans or Democrats? Remove totally. 14. Delete these words "Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by". Keep all the rest. "In late January 2014, a was petition created on the White House's website which described Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations (sic) youth" thus calling for Bieber to be deported." 15. Absolutely keep with need to follow up when the White House reaction comes. As for me, I never much cared for Justin Bieber in person. But I changed my mind when I saw the documentary. Somewhere in the section, there should be a social and psychological analysis of the phenomenon of pressure young artists suffer at the peak of their success and how it ruins their lives and careers. Hopefully Bieber will come to his senses as he is an intelligent boy indeed. werldwayd (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OMG TLDR, I appreciate the intention of improving the article however we are likely delving into trivial detail when the average reader is looking for more broad strokes, and any meaning to these activities. i think the main points are that he is an over-watched, and over-analyzed celebrity, ergo his actions are under a microscope. This point should be woven into the narrative so it's unmistakeable. I just today saw a report that some of his recent behavior is tied to his father re-inserting himself as the go-to male authority figure replacing Scooter. This would seem to be relevant. Many of the minor incidents are of interest only to a small portion of readers and will likely be removed in time. I suggest moving some, or most, of these to a footnote (see Harvey Milk for how this looks, and can be done). In that way you can denote the most noteworthy incidents, and still have, for those invested, details, and links to sources, about other less important ones. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1: too vague, no. 2: who cares? was he convicted? but mostly, who cares? 3: this is about neighbors, not Bieber, unless he's been charged. 4: this is not about Bieber, leave it out. 5: not about Bieber, leave it out. 6. notable unless he was never charged, in which case not notable. 7: by itself this is not about Bieber.  If they were racing, say that. 8. factual, ok, but who cares?  9. these are interesting if he was impaired; otherwise, not. 10 OK, if he was charged.   Otherwise, gossipy, but not outright inappropriate to include. 11. unless this was reported and someone was charged, it's too gossipy. 13. who cares?  not notable.  14/15. 200k people responded?  That's not a very big number for Bieber, sad to say.   I don't think this is notable—it's more about the pollers than about Bieber. Abhayakara (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

General survey
If you are a new commenter to this RfC, please also read the Point-by-point survey section above and post your opinion in the Responses to above points section for further clarity.
 * Minor inclusion Just need to mention hes had some trouble with a link (source) that list all the incidents. No need to regurgitate news guess work or mention specifics till courts has resolved the problems. All the above info is just overwhelming (undue weight). No need for info on polls and the like. -- Moxy (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Separate section for legal troubles, minimal coverage of the rest. The legal issues are very much in the news and covered by many reliable sources.  Polling maybe deserves a passing mention but not its own section.  The deportation petition should be referenced only insofar as reliable sources discuss it.  Andrew327 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion - I believe most of the content should be included. I think the past troubles paragraph should remain untouched, will explain below. The next paragraph on what he has been charged with is to be mentioned with the utmost priority, but that paragraph itself could do with a little bit of trimming (Lamborghini). I'm open to some trimming for the poll and petition but I definitely think they should be included in the article within the Style image and fans section. No opinion yet on whether a separate legal section is needed. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the stuff that attracts police or government attention, Oppose the stuff that merely gets the "little people" fired up. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Its finding a balance. You can't ignore the legal problems but we also don't want to list every trivial offence. A separate section is definitely appropriate and gleaning the basics.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove most as not being encyclopedic. Wikipedia should not be a tabloid, and should not be used in furtherance of any crusade against any living person - the task is to write articles that a person far removed from the National Enquirer will see as being neutrally sourced and worded. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Summarize some of the more notable antics, give a few examples, and then let it go.  We're not going to bullet-list every down & dirty thing a spoiled celebrity does. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of current Legal issues section, as nearly everything is relevant to the most notable event (the DUI arrest), as has been explained in above sections and abides by WP:WELLKNOWN. If anything must be removed we should have consensus for it, and not just axe the whole paragraph like some have tried to do before. However, the poll/petition can be cut out as it is general trivia and unencyclopedic. That is, unless the petition actually results in his deportation.  STATic  message me!  14:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of the legal issues as a distinct section in "Personal life", and support moving "Style, image and fans" below "Personal life", as Bieber's legal problems are particularly relevant in the way it impacts his image to the public. If Bieber ends up with a lot of legal stories, might change my view to Summarize. Also support the mention of the petition through a simple paragraph, and maybe a brief mention of polls to give it more context. Bieber has a very polarized image which would be better understood thanks to all this information. --JimeoWan (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion – most of his legal issues that are well known and can be easily verifiable under an appropriate section under "Personal life". We don't need to dive into too much detail for each issue, but they need a mention. Additionally some things such as the polling do deserve at least a passing mention. As per some of the suggestions above, the later part of the “Style, image and fans” is tightly linked to his legal issues. It could enjoy a slight reorganization, perhaps moved some of it to that legal issues section. -- Cy be r XR ef ☎ 06:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion - particularly his legal problems. I also support giving enough credit in his Wikipedia article to the petition and campaign for his extradition from the States and revoking of his green card / residency. Even the earlier smaller incidents were a clear signal and prelude for his big legal problems in USA and in Canada. Other artists have been in more minimal controversy, an odd media declaration here or there, and we have covered it. Here we have a case of massive media coverage and we are still discussing whether to include them, particularly the case of the petition that garnered tens of thousands of signatures and has reached the White House after fulfilling the 100,000 threshold? We are just being over-sensitive and over-protective of an artist who is now in a downward spiral and ever-deepening problems with the law. These are significant enough to put his whole artistic future in jeopardy, even him threatening to stop his career... so they are very significant. Polls better be left out though. This is not a matter of personal opinions of fans or opponents for that matter. By the way, I have great sympathy for the artist and have been following his output for a very long time now. werldwayd (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion Everything that is currently in the legal issues section MINUS the poll as it is trivial. The other information is backed up by reliable sources, and has undergone ongoing notability. As I have said in the BLP noticeboard if you want to disinclude this section then where should be a wikipedia-wide consensus on how we deal with legal issues in BLP articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove most. The thrust of an article should be what the person is notable for. He's a musician and and that's what we want to cover, mostly. His personal life is peripheral to that, and to the extent we cover it, we want stuff like his background that contributed to his craft. Per WP:BLP we want to go very light on including material that is deprecatory, especially if it's trivial as it mostly is here. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR overrides what is written in WP:BLP as these core wikipedia policies are what makes up the BLP policy. The fact is that his legal issues have the widespread coverage to pass WP:N Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What an interesting claim.  WP:NPOV also mandates removal of the cruft here, as does WP:BLP. WP:N is not relevant here -- it is specifically about whether a topic is notable enough for its own article, and has nothing to do with the weight given a topic in a BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "The thrust of an article should be what the person is notable for." However in this case Bieber is a notable musician within a targeted age group. His notability as this type of musician makes his behaviour extremely notable to everyone else which is why the media cover his actions in such detail compared to most other "artists". If it makes the news for any length of time it has to be notable enough for inclusion. Wayne (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion in proportion to the amount of coverage in reliable sources and signifigance to his career/life. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support some inclusion (1) Details of legal problems should be given due weight only, (2) if long enough, they may warrant a separate section. (3) No public polls are necessary. Public polls change all the time. WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. (4) Include the White House deportation petition only if it has been referred to by several reliable secondary sources. --Precision123 (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support some inclusion. He's a worldwide high-profile celebrity, so it's reported on what he wears, and when he goes to the bathroom. Hindsight will prove invaluable here. So will pushing borderline material into footnotes. Try to identify the most notable incidents and cover them minimally. Look to bundling the rest "also ran" episodes into footnotes, because the main point is the same. He gets into trouble. Cite that he does, and talk about why that is, and what effect it has on his work. The briefer it is, the more likely someone will actually read it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove most.  Most of what's currently in the article is not about Bieber.   Okay, there was illegal stuff on his tour bus.   He wasn't arrested or charged for it.   Doesn't belong in the article.   The pot smoke on the plane story is pure hearsay, doesn't belong in the article.   On the other hand, he was arrested and put in jail in Miami.   That clearly belongs in the article.   If he's subsequently convicted or exonerated, that belongs in the article as well.   Fluffing this section out with stuff that's essentially gossip is POV and should not be sustained. Abhayakara (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove most per above, as much of it is just celebrity muckraking gossip, nothing that significantly contributes to the subject's biography. An encyclopedia article should reflect and summarize what reliable sources say about a person, not re-paste every drip and drop of coverage that exists.  Be selective, and intelligent. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would argue that this is exactly what is being done. It's already a summary of reliable sources. Not every "gossipy" and controversial issue is mentioned. The minor and unnotable ones have already been deleted before this RfC existed. It's like you're asking for a summary of a summary. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 22:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * All we need to say is " hes had legal trouble over the past few years ranging from vandalism to DUI charges". We dont need to mention details that are still being reported and in the court process. We aslo dont need to mention what others are doing because of him like petition and/or poll results or what his friends have been involved in. -- Moxy (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Every charge should be mentioned. "What others are doing because of him" is relevant to Bieber's public image. "what his friends have been involved in" - Khalil was arrested together with Bieber during the DUI charge. Lil Za was arrested in Bieber's own home for possessing drugs. Bieber's entourage was found to have marijuana in Sweden - ties in with the first arrest of Bieber having THC in his system, a component of marijuana. Recently Bieber and his entourage was reported to be smoking marijuana on a plane by NBC News - his entourage is clearly significant to his problems. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the key thing is to remember that we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. What goes in the article now is what would be significant to the reader 10–20 years from now. Should his legal troubles be covered in depth? For his sake, I hope not. I hope it'll be sufficient to have a sentence or two, along the lines of what Moxy said above. In the worst case hypothetical speculation, the current charges might only be a sentence or two in a hypothetical future section about some major incident leading to his hypothetical future jailing/deportation/etc. So, in a sense, it's too early to say that his current legal issues are that significant.
 * Likewise, I think the petition is only a temporary thing, and nothing will come of it. It's interesting, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of interesting facts. It might be worth mentioning the petition and the polls in one sentence in the section on public image/perception, but I don't think it warrants a lot of coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I really think his current legal troubles will remain important in his long-term biography. Polling and petitions won't and only deserve passing mention.  However, he has had so many legal problems in different places that they are an important part of his life.  It's important that only reliable sources be used, but his problems have been in the Washington Post, New York Times, etc.  Andrew327 06:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding your The deportation petition should be referenced only insofar as reliable sources discuss it. comment in the Survey section above, there's Reuters, CNN, The Independent and MarketWatch already cited. If you are not satisfied with those, how about Forbes, TIME, ABC News, CNN News and Toronto Sun? starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My 2c as someone who is not remotely interested in his music. Regarding the above...Legal problems section - first paragraph is ok but the second paragraph is too detailed...the first and last sentences should be adequate cover. Regarding the Public poll section - It's trivia and should be deleted. I see no real problem with the Public White House deportation petition section although maybe it doesn't deserve it's own section. Why not just add it to the end of the Legal problems section? Wayne (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The poll and petition aren't meant to have their own sections. There is a "Style, image and fans" section in the article, and I believe both the poll and the petition should go in there, because both are relevant to his image or perception. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to edit the titles in the grey boxes to make it more apparent. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I find walls of text to be off-putting, and a sign that the desire is to show how bad a person is. See User:Collect/BLP for examples of what a prior editor tried to do with BLPs, and which I fear may be the case here. That editor finally got removed as a sock master, by the way, but wrought havoc for years. Collect (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First I'd like to state that all content here is reliably sourced, there should be no question about that. Now, going to get the poll and the petition out of the way first. Both are relevant to his public image. An image section exists in the article. This should go in there. Bonus points for noteworthiness - his poll revealed he was the only artiste surveyed disliked across party lines, while the petition was the most popular open one on the White House website. I'll understand if people would want to trim the poll and the petition, but strongly disagree on removing them altogether.
 * I'll be very surprised if anyone actually wants to take out the information on what he's been charged for out of the article (vandalism, DUI, driving with an (over six months) expired licence and for resisting arrest without violence, assault) - this is the most "serious" information on what's he's done. A little trimming is okay - Lamborghini, Ferrari and $2500 can go. So can "surrendered to Toronto police" instead you can replace with 'Toronto police charged him with...' is fine. But, other info is important. Khalil arrested together with Bieber is significant because Bieber's friends / entourage has caused him problems in the past (more on that in next para). THC and Xanax are important so we can clarify what he was DUI for.
 * Past troubles - one isolated "controversial" incident probably is not noteworthy. Problem is that Bieber has been involved in a series of unsavoury incidents even before his first arrest - a pattern can probably be discerned. In this CTV source alone, a timeline is described where Bieber on average is involved in more than one incident per month in 2013 itself, while there were still incidents in 2011 and 2012 also. That's why you have reliable sources saying his first arrest is 'more culmination than aberration'. Instead of mentioning every past incident, this past troubles paragraph is already a summary, it actually mentions only four "types" of incidents, which were either related to his first arrest or backs up "run-ins with the law around the world ". Less serious incidents like urinating, Anne Frank a Belieber or lawsuits where he wasn't charged were not included. You have him charged for vandalism in Brazil, then his graffiti in Australia and Colombia become more notable. A pattern. His neighbours have accused / confronted him regarding reckless driving / speeding at least thrice, this is relevant to his first arrest of a driving offence. The tour bus raids in two countries turn up marijuana (relevant to Bieber's first arrest too) but mainly condemn his friends / entourage. Lil Za arrested in Bieber's home for drug possession also reflects on Bieber's friends / entourage. Meanwhile, Bieber's friend Khalil was arrested with Bieber in his first arrest. Another pattern. This info needs to be made apparent to the public, they can draw their own conclusions from there. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 10:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 *  pretty toxic insinuation, eh? That's really a low blow. Also, there are simply walls of text because there is lots to argue and substantiate. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More than 60% of this discussion is from one editor. 40% is from 5 editors.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Starship.paint can you trim back the rants a bit...this is the type of thing that makes people not want to comment or just ignore your comments all together - we want every one to have their views hear and read..even yours!!  - Moxy (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest; probably 80% if not more of the content of the grey boxes was contributed by yours truly. Naturally I will be the most voracious in defending it. So instead of rebutting 60% of the arguments here, let's broadly describe it as off-putting and then ignore it. Collect, you've already had two replies in this threaded discussion and both times you'd rather attack me than attack my arguments. Broadly dismissing my arguments seems to be a speciality of yours. How funny that Moxy too will reply - I know my content has had substantial opposition to it, but only two editors have used pseudo-personal attacks against me. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This went way over your head,,,,,people are trying to explain that long walls of text   and replying to everyone personally in depth does not help your case. Why because people will simply skip over your stuff if they think your just ranting. As you can see below your wall of text has already confused people because your talking about stuff and making associations that no one else is. Moxy (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia is neither a police blotter nor a remote outpost of the TMZ empire. I loathe this joker as much as the next guy, but people who think "Oxygen Mask-gate" is legitimate BLP content need a bit of quiet self-reflection in a corner. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And being an encyclopedia we must present information in a well-rounded and neutral point of view manner. Mr Bieber's legal troubles are not an obscure subject, they are well-known, notable, and highly verifiable. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, they are not even mentioned. I am not looking to fight WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS, but some stuff is simply not going away. Mr Bieber is a celebrity – an actor and a singer-songwriter; third-most powerful celebrity in the world in 2012 according to Forbes. His legal troubles and public opinion is an important aspect of his personal life that needs to be described. We don't have to dig our every little issue, but we can't simply ignore his legal issues either. I think a section presenting that information is appropriate. We don't need to dive into anything too specific and some things should only have a passing mention. I don't think that's too unreasonable. -  Cy be r XR ef ☎ 06:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think we should further clarify this RfC as to the exact incidents which should remain in the BLP. Otherwise the comments above will not/cannot be interpreted clearly. We should itemise the questions according to each incident. Something like "Does the reaction of the neighbours stay or go?", "Does the maskgate remain or not?" "Is Lil Za to be included"? Otherwise even if we reach some sort of consensus, it will not be clear enough. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree now that the wall of text above is making links to behaviour and association of people. The original point was to talk about the above in quotes that keeps being reverted back and forth.,,but your right if we are going down the path of what may look like synthesis to many we need to talk about how and what  associations are correct. -- Moxy (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection to what Dr.K. proposed. Also, let's include Mask-gate in it too. I'll see if I can write and reference it up in the next 24 hours. But, if we do carry out Dr.K's proposal, all previous editors who have commented should be asked to re-comment again. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * TO be clear you think much more should be added about this right...best you make a list -   here because we are not going to do this all the time ...he makes the news everyday (even today). Best you make up a list of all the things you think we want to read about and add it below...no guess work on associations or made up tittles pls -- Moxy (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's only one thing I want to add. Everything before 2014 is covered already. It was reported that during a private flight two days after his assault charge, Bieber, his father and entourage filled the plane with so much marijuana smoke that that the pilots had to don oxygen masks.

That's it for now, baring future incidents. The content goes into the end of the second legal troubles paragraph.


 * starship.paint (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This suddenly matters to me. Copied the paragraph, suggested striking and added in italics.


 * Bieber has had several run-ins with the law around the world before his first arrest in 2014. In 2013, Bieber was charged in Brazil with vandalism ; in the same year, Bieber's and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities.[3][5] Meanwhile, Bieber's neighbours in the community of Calabasas, such as Keyshawn Johnson have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding with in the neighbourhood.[17][5][7] Police in Detroit and (city name) each raided Bieber's tour buses were raided twice in 2013 in Detroit and Sweden while Bieber was not present ; . They found raids turned up unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in the former incident (city name) and marijuana in the latter (other city).[3][6] Less than two weeks (number of days) before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's his friend Lil Za for possessing drugs believed to be cocaine possession.[17][18][4]


 * On January 23, 2014, Bieber was arrested in Miami Beach, Florida, on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) , driving with an (over six month) expired licence and for resisting arrest without violence.[5][19][20] According to police, Bieber he was driving a Lamborghini and R&B singer Khalil, who was also arrested, was driving a Ferrari.[21] He Bieber was released on a $2,500 bond.[22] A toxicology report revealed that Bieber had THC (a component in marijuana) and the anti-anxiety medication Xanax alprazolam in his system at the time of his when arrested.[23][24] On January 29 , 2014 , Bieber surrendered to Toronto police, who charged him with assaulting a limousine driver in Toronto in December (day,) 2013.[25][26][27] InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, all polls are bullshit and should never be used in an encyclopedia. But if they somehow are, they should include the sample size and not say "among Americans" unless every last one was phoned. If there was no difference between political teams, why even mention it? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If we decide to move forward, we have to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. It's currently a total mess. -- Cy be r XR ef ☎ 06:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If we are going to separate it sentence-by-sentence / point-by-point and have people "vote" include or discard, it's going to be very tedious. There are at least 18 points, I believe. It's tedious for those who don't swing "mostly keep" or "mostly discard", anyway. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned previously, using words like "mostly", (which BTW are also weasel words, although I know, this is not an article, but still), invites trouble at the end of the RfC when editors won't agree on what "mostly" means, leading to yet another RfC to clarify that. Not a good prospect. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Rounding up
The article has been unprotected. I think it's enough time now. It's time to bring the RfC to a conclusion. I will summarize the results of the point-by-point survey and the general survey. For the general survey, 18 editors offered their input: (Moxy, starship.paint, Andrew327, InedibleHulk, Dr. Blofeld, Collect, Tarc, STATic, JimeoWan, CyberXRef, werldwayd, Knowledgekid87, Herostratus, Purplewowies, Precision123, Sportfan5000, Abhayakara, Wayne). Simply put, those in opposition appear to be outnumbered (5) by those in favour (13). The point-by-point survey was opened on 14 February and was eight editors participated ( Purplewowies, starship.paint, Precision123, Serialjoepsycho, JimeoWan, Andrew327, werldwayd and Abhayakara) offered their detailed input. Five other editors participated (Collect, Moxy, Atsme, Dr. Blofeld, Sportfan5000) but did not offer detailed input. Here are the results, I will be listing who has opposed which point: Firstly I'd like to reassure all editors that for every single point there are reliable sources out there, so Andrew327 and Purplewowies can rest assured that if the point is added to the article, so will the reliable source. Points that met substantial opposition (after taking into account RS present) were 7 (7/8), 11 (3/8), 13 (4/8) and 14 (3/8). The rest of the points were objected to by 2/8 or less. starship.paint (talk &#124; ctrb) 13:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Leaning include most (7): starship.paint, Dr. Blofeld, JimeoWan, CyberXRef, werldwayd, Purplewowies, Precision123
 * Leaning include legal issues (5): Andrew327, InedibleHulk, STATic, Knowledgekid87, Sportfan5000
 * Didn't vote, appears to be leaning towards include (1): Wayne
 * Leaning remove most (4) or summarise (1): Moxy, Collect, Herostratus, Abhayakara and Tarc.
 * 1 -> Abhayakara
 * 2 -> werldwayd (trim), Abhayakara (borderline/BL)
 * 3 -> JimeoWan (BL), Abhayakara
 * 4 -> werldwayd, Abhayakara
 * 5 -> Abhayakara
 * 7 -> purplewowies, starship.paint (trim), Precision123 (trim), serialjoepsycho, JimeoWan (BL), werldwayd (trim), Abhayakara (BL)
 * 8 -> starship.paint (trim), Precision123 (trim)
 * 9 -> JimeoWan (BL)
 * 11 -> JimeoWan (BL), werldwayd, Abhayakara, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
 * 12 -> Purplewowies (unless RS found), Precision123, werldwayd, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
 * 13 -> Purplewowies (unless RS found), Precision123, Abhayakara, serialjoepsycho, JimeoWan (BL), werldwayd, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
 * 14 -> JimeoWan, werldwayd (trim), Abhayakara, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
 * 15 ->Abhayakara, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
 * Therefore, based on the results, I thereby propose: Point 7 is trimmed to "R&B singer Khalil was also arrested". Point 13 is to be deleted. Point 14 is to be trimmed by "Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by". Not sure about Point 11, it might not be able to be trimmed. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 13:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't really proper for an RfC participant (and major contributor to the article itself) to attempt to summarize a discussion such as this; leave it to the eventual closer of the RfC, who will be a neutral, involved 3rd party. You have an obvious desire for a certain outcome here and that POV can seep through here, even if unintentional. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, I was unaware because this is pretty much my first participation in an RfC. So who is coming to close this RfC? It's been open for more than a month. I merely did so because there was apparently no conclusion to all the discussion. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 22:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)