Talk:Christina Aguilera/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

POV in lead

I've just trimmed and rewritten this fawning slab of POV text from the lead section:

Christina Maria Aguilera (born December 18 1980) is a Grammy Award winning, American, pop, R&B, singer-songwriter. Colloquially known as Xtina, she is most notable for her vocal abilities as well as her unorthodox sense of fashion. Her vocal skills have been compared to those of singers such as Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston. She has achieved four number-one singles on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and has won three Grammy Awards and one Latin Grammy Award, as well as two top five albums in the United States. Aguilera is now married to record executive Jordan Bratman.

It's a violation of the neutral point of view policy to just list all of her achievements like that, especially when they hardly have any context. For example, why is it important that Aguilera has won a Grammy Award (or that we should mention it twice in the same paragraph)? Why should we mention as soon as possible that she has released four U.S. number-one singles and two top five albums? Lots of readers look at lead sections before choosing whether they want to continue onto the rest of the article, and a fannish tone like the one in the paragraph above can turn many off (including myself). The stuff about her being compared to Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston is unsourced, and I have removed it. I hope that user:Maddyfan will join in this discussion rather than reverting without explanation. Extraordinary Machine 11:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed the mention of Aguilera's marriage to Jordan Bratman. Their relationship doesn't seem to have had anywhere near as much publicity/press coverage as, say, Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. Extraordinary Machine 11:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So basically we'll have to paraphrase the entire article in the lead. Anybody care to take a stab at it (for lack of better word)? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine, don't be ridiculous, Aguilera's album is dedicated to her husband, and it receives coverage all over the media. She even had her wedding photos sold. STOP VANDALIZING! We will boot your butt right out of here! This is not your page. You also removed Aguilera's vocal range. We are working on sources. Don't remove!!! Maddyfan 22:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite your edits? BTW, Vandalism is a legit attempt to ruin the encyclopedia. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm not performing vandalism; I am, however, bringing (or at least trying to bring) this article in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. It would be appreciated if your contributions to this article were in support of those policies rather than your own personal opinions.
2. You're reminded every time you edit a page that "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". You can't "boot [my] butt right out of here"; you do not own this page, nobody does.
3. You've been reported at WP:AN/3RR for violating the three-revert rule. Extraordinary Machine 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of being neutral. What in the introduction is not neutral? Explain. Maddyfan 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

EM you are a doo doo head! 66.68.254.78 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See below (#Notices and protection). Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, Extraordinary Machine, you'd hate the Eric Lindros page. If you think this has nPOV probs, you should take a look at that one. I was just there and somehow found my way here, so just thought I'd mention it :).--J.a.f.a.c. 06:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've just stumbled across this article, I don't want to be irritating, but can someone please explain to me how 'the public were in awe' thing is neutral? You must be joking. Controversial certainly, but not awe-inspiring. I love her music but surely someone is taking the piss.

Currently Sourcing Heading Back To Basics Section

Please don't edit. Thanks. Maddyfan 22:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You cannot prevent people from editing a section. You can add a {{inuse}} tag reminding people you are editing. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Referencing was the least of the problems that section, but since you've chosen to revert my edits wholesale without an explanation, here's the reasons for why I made the edits I did:

1. M or n dashes are preferable to "-" in the section heading.
2. "Present" does not need capitalising in the section header as it is not part of a title. See WP:MOSHEAD#Capitalization.
3. Individual month and year links should almost never be linked to. See WP:DATE.
4. House style is to use people's surnames instead of first names when referring to them, except in special cases (e.g. Madonna).
5. Random words like "Awards" do not need to be linked. See WP:CONTEXT.
6. Conjunctions, prepositions and articles in song and album titles should not be capitalised (e.g. "Here to Stay" and Back to Basics). See WP:NC#Album_titles_and_band_names.
7. There was too much detail in that section, considering this is an article about Aguilera and not the album. Readers don't need to know things like music video filming dates or detailed descriptions of individual songs (unless extremely notable in the context of Aguilera's career, e.g. "Dirrty") or television commercials.
8. Short and one-line paragraphs should generally be avoided. See WP:GTL#Structure_of_the_article. Extraordinary Machine 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Extradinary Machine, please edit again, so we can just boot you. Seriously. The magazine is over to the left. People have a right to know the detail of it's content since it was a big issue with singer, Mariah Carey, and what was said. Enough with the tidying. There is NO MORE TIDYING. You don't agree with something. You come here and we'll discuss. Tidying with you is vandalism, and will be reverted.Maddyfan 17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... Those are valid reasons to cleanup the article - at least till the second to the last point. We're trying to improve this article in any way we can. If they want to know about a certain album or video, they can go to that particluar article. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 21:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See I can work with you, not Extradinary Machine. They just delete everything and go on their way. That's the problem. It's not cleaning up, it's just deleting everything. That section DOES need clean-up, but we need people who know how to do that. A lot of that info can go on, and already is, on the album's page. Extradinary Machine has this nice way of dancing around what they were actually doing. Maddyfan 21:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did delete some information (not everything, and not the Mariah Carey info), because this isn't an article about the album. I'm not "dancing around" anything, I'm trying to improve this article. See below (#Notices and protection). Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Vocal ability/profile sections removed per WP:CITE

Per WP:CITE#Text_that_is.2C_or_is_likely_to_be.2C_disputed (which states "Disputed text can immediately be removed entirely or moved from the article to the talk page for discussion"), I have removed the unsourced material about Aguilera's vocal ability and profile from the article and placed it here:

==Vocal ability==

Christina Aguilera's four-octave voice has often been said to be that of a mix of [[Mariah Carey]] and [[Whitney Houston]] because of both her power and range. Her [[Spinto]] ([[Coloratura]]) [[Soprano]] voice has been hailed as one of the best of all time. In 2003, she placed at number five (3rd for a female, behind Carey and Houston) on MTV's countdown of The 22 Greatest Voices in Music. Additionally, Cove Magazine crowned Christina Aguilera number one for The Best Pop Vocalist of all time in their countdown of the 100 Greatest Pop Vocalists ever, giving her a mark of 50/50 for her vocal capabilities. <ref>"[http://covemagazine.com/100vocalists.html The 100 Outstanding Vocalists]", Cove Magazine, 2003</ref>

==Vocal Profile==

*Voice Type: [[Spinto]] ([[Coloratura]]) [[Soprano]] *Highest Notes: C#6 (Get Mine Get Yours), E♭6 ([[Angels We Have Heard On High]]), E6 ([[Pero Me Acuerdo De Tí]]), F6 ([[Car Wash]]), F#6 (Soar), G6 ([[What A Girl Wants]] Live on SNL), G#6 ([[What A Girl Wants]] Live on Stripped Tour), B♭6 ([[What A Girl Wants]] Live on [[My Reflection]]), C7 ([[The Christmas Song]]) *Highest Note in Chest: G#5 ([[Lady Marmalade]]) *Lowest Notes: C3 ([[At Last]] live at "Men Strike Back), D3 (Walk Away), E♭3 (Dreamy Eyes) *Longest Note: 20 seconds ([[At Last]] live on Stripped Tour) *Vocal range: 4 [[octaves]] (C3-C7)

Please do not replace it without citing reliable sources, as editors are requested to every time they edit a page. Also, the above material will need copyediting to be brought into line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 18:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Extradinary Machine you're on notice for breaking the 3 edit rule. Stop deleting information. You come here first, discuss and WE will decide what to do. Not YOU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maddyfan (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 June 2006.

Additionally you must pay homage to me to use my site and spit shine my shoes. 66.68.254.78 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm happy to discuss these issues peacefully and productively, but I'm afraid that's somewhat difficult when the editors I am trying to discuss this with are performing inappropriate wholesale reverts that border on vandalism (see above). I've provided a full explanation for my edits to the article, which isn't sacred scripture that can only be edited by a few select people.
2. You're already in violation of the three-revert rule (regardless of whether you are logged in when you perform your blanket reverts).
3. Reference.com is a website that mirrors Wikipedia content (thus introducing an inappropriate circular reference, which we should never do) and message board postings are not reliable sources. Please cite reliable sources before you re-insert the material above into the article. Extraordinary Machine 11:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've now been backed into the 3RR corner on the voice sections by Maddyfan (talk · contribs) and Prof. MagneStormix (talk · contribs), neither of whom have provided reliable sources for the material in those sections. That still doesn't mean I can't place notices there asking for references, cleanup and removal of weasel words. Extraordinary Machine 11:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

EM, you've deleted whole sections of content, have edited five times. You're on your way to being blocked and no bullying will stop us from gladly removing you. I would leave the page for awhile if I were you because you're really in danger of being blocked. Maddyfan 11:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The 3RR prohibits reverting more than three times in 24 hours, not editing five times. I haven't reverted any section more than three times in a day, whereas you have.
2. Maybe, just maybe, instead of blanket reverting you could actually read my messages and see why I made the edits I did. Extraordinary Machine 11:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's revert the article back to its original version Vandalism is rampant and you are all sinners! 66.68.254.78 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Six edits in a row, deleting entire sections. Once more, you're out. Leave! You have had more than one chance. Maddyfan 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't know why you're presenting a complete misrepresentation of my edits, when they're all there to see in the edit history (the version Maddyfan keeps reverting away from is here, and the version she keeps reverting to is here, for anybody who's interested).
2. Aside from MoS fixes and general cleanup (which I explained fully above), you've also reverted a fix I made to the date of a footnote, which I changed from "November 21, 2006" to "November 21, 2005" (you changed it back to the incorrect date). That is vandalism, and I've asked you to stop blindly reverting in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
3. You cannot claim ownership on an article, nor can you tell others to "leave". This is not your page, you cannot strong-arm other editors out with your constant non-stop wholesale reverting. You may not realise this, Wikipedia isn't a place where you can get your own way if you are stubborn enough. Extraordinary Machine 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You just took what I said to you. EM, you are a vandalizer. Edit one more time today, you're blocked. Nice try. Won't work. You have edited 7 times now in one day. You deleted whole sections. Removed citations. All of this without discussing it first. You are claiming ownership of the page and we won't have it. Maddyfan 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Provide diff links from the edit history indicating when I violated the three-revert rule on this article. Just one will do.
2. Direct me to the place where you have provided full explanations for your reverts and attempted to discuss this amicably whilst noting why your edits are in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
3. I didn't delete any section. I transferred one to the talk page as it did not contain references (per WP:CITE#Text_that_is.2C_or_is_likely_to_be.2C_disputed), and I condensed and tidied another (see #Currently_Sourcing_Heading_Back_To_Basics_Section above). I "deleted" neither.
4. Those citations were unreliable, as I've already explained. Just think about this: how professional would it look if Encyclopedia Britannica or any similar publication used previous editions of their own encyclopedia and message postings for references? Extraordinary Machine 16:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My dear, you have three sections before the Back to Basics section with citations needed. Start there. You're simply deleting content that you don't agree with. You left Christina's Sony Ericson phone deal mention that didn't have a source, and dumped everything else that did have a source. You're hiding behind the word tidying, when it's vandalizing. Maddyfan 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See below (#Notices and protection). Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You WERE NOT REVERTING ALL THOSE TIMES EM. You deleted other contributions, everytime something was added you didn't like. Get lost. Maddyfan 15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Note:::

Christina Aguilera cannot hit the 7th octave, therefore she couldnt have mimicked Mariah Carey's "Emotions" and hit every note

Protected

Due to the edit war at this article, I've protected the page. Please resolve the dispute with civility here at this Talk page. Jkelly 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate this. Thanks. Maddyfan, I hope you will recognise that a) discussion is more useful in edit disputes than simply blindly reverting, b) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines aren't there to be broken, and c) you do not own this article. Extraordinary Machine 16:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Extradinary Machine, you can play victim all you want. You've turned this page into chaos, totally deleting others contributions at whim. You took up one discussion after countless times screaming at you to do so before just deleting content. You've broken more rules on here, than anyone else, and want to fight it out just to have your way. Again, this is not YOUR page. You cannot just go and start shredding pages of content without discussing with people first. You took months of contributions and trashed them, and then when multiple people came sourcing, and adding, you still reverted back because you just want the content gone. The question of, why should we include her husband, exposed this loud and clear. It's all your point of view. Maddyfan 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Provide diff links for the "countless times" that I was asked to discuss this; I'll even drop the plural, just provide one.
2. Name the rules that I've broken here, or explain why I shouldn't (again) list the policies and guidelines that you have violated.
3. I know that it is important that users should discuss controversial edits (well, I thought that a general cleanup and NPOV-isation would be "uncontroversial"; see Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages), which is why I initiated the discussion here (after you reverted without even an edit summary) and have placed several messages on your talk page inviting you to comment.
4. One editor (yourself, under your IP address) inserted two unreliable sources that backed up only one of many unsourced statements in the article, and I removed the unsourced material and transferred it to the talk page per the WP:CITE guidelines. Another editor seems to have been restoring the unsourced material without explanation, despite requests on his/her talk page asking him to provide reliable references. That's hardly "multiple people", and Wikipedia isn't a democracy anyway: reasons for edits count more than sheer numbers of editors.
5. I wasn't against including a mention of Aguilera's husband in the article, it's just that I didn't think their relationship is notable enough (in the context of the material already present in the article) for mentioning in the lead section. Introductions are supposed to be summaries of the rest of the article, and Aguilera's relationship with Bratman only gets three sentences about it. (Note that I did compromise and leave the mention of their marriage in, but of course you blindly reverted.) This is why I tried to rewrite the lead to make it sound like a compressed chronology of Aguilera's career rather than "She's achieved this and that [isn't she great]". Extraordinary Machine 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're not cleaning up, you're deleting entire headings and sections with information. If you want to clean up, there are three other sections starting from the top top that have absolutely no sources. Secondly, I agree that the Back to Basics section needs to be cleaned up, and I can easily do that. If you're going to remove unsourced material, the whole page goes. That's the point. You deleted entire sections that had sourced information. If you want to "help out" this page, search for articles relating to the earlier work. You are not simply THE editor. Again, you did all that deleting without ever discussing it first. It's hard to go back and source older material, if we have to go back and search for it again, after your deleting hissy fit. You also broke the 3 edit rule 5 hundred times.Maddyfan 18:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See below (#Notices and protection). Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

vocal profile

I have both dvds and I know the note listed as being a B6 cannot be accurate. It's got to be a G6 or G#6 at most. I have compared both notes on the stripped DVD and "Refelction" back to back there is only like a half step difference betwen the two. I think it needs to be revaulated for accuracy, I could however be wrong. Does anyone have a tuner?

We don't need a tuner! We need a professional article from a magazine which states this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lbmixpro (talk • contribs) .

You're not signing your name, and no we do not need a magazine article, we can still source the material, and keep on looking for online text.Maddyfan 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How can we source the material? ---LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

you CANNOT source the article using tuners and original research! and a blog is not an acceptable source. I am watching this page and will remove the content and incorrect categorisation the minute this article is unprotected.--I'll bring the food 12:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Notices and protection

• What's wrong with the lead-in paragraph? It covers both the good an the bad of Aguilera. The only major crits Christina recieved are from her outfits, which is explained "for her unorthodox sense of fashion" and her performance of Dirrty. Most other crits are because of her association with her Musical Genre.

  The introduction paragraph needs cleanup, it needs to summarize what's in the article. It may have worked when the article was short, but it's grown signifigantly since I've encountered it. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• The first {{cite}} comes from the JBF cover. I read in an article about the lawsuit. I think it's already cited here.
• I can check CMM CNS for citations. I know they're there.
• I don't think "she is believed by many of her fans to be one of the main proponents (along with Gwen Stefani and Ashley Judd) in bringing back the 1920s-1940s Hollywood glamour look.[citation needed]" can be varifiable, unless Christina's official site says so.
• The 2006 section needs cleanup. It seems like a news dump, and with Christina ready to promote the album, this section will grow like a weed.
• We've been through this before. The vocal profile doesn't belong unless it's backed by a major journalistic source. A forum is not a source!, answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror, so that won't work at all.

I don't want an edit war ensuing again. Let's cite what needs to be cited, and we'll deal with the other stuff as soon as it's done. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I feel that the lead section (on the current version of the article) violates the NPOV policy because it presents a select list of critical and commercial achievements without any context; it's just "there", and it seems to be a problem with a lot of articles about contemporary musicians. "She has achieved four number-one singles on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and has won three Grammy Awards and one Latin Grammy Award[1], as well as two top five albums in the United States"; the relevance and significance of this information isn't established beforehand, so it reads rather "fannish". I don't feel that the word "unorthodox" has negative connotations, so essentially the lead has nothing negative to say about Aguilera. Now that would be fine if hardly anything had been said about Aguilera in the media and critical reception of her music was almost uniformly positive, but as the article attests to, that's not the case. Here's what I wrote as a replacement ([1]):

Christina Maria Aguilera (born December 18 1980) is an American pop singer-songwriter. Colloquially known as Xtina, she is known for her vocal abilities as well as her unorthodox sense of fashion. She began working in the entertainment industry at a relatively young age and rose to popularity through the critical and commercial success of her debut album Christina Aguilera (1999), which produced four hit singles. Her second English-language studio album Stripped (2002) was also greeted with high sales, but attracted less favorable reviews and generated controversy due to Aguilera's increasingly sexual public image. In 2005 she married record executive Jordan Bratman, and her third album Back to Basics is scheduled for a summer 2006 release.

Now I'm sure that it could be improved, but lead sections are supposed to provide brief summaries of the article, acting as a "capsule biography" if you will. See Kylie Minogue or even Madonna (entertainer) for examples of this; in both instances there is a clear structure to the introduction, which presents both the positive and negative aspects about each artist's career, and providing context for things like awards and sales figures. Just listing a few awards and chart positions and adding a mention of her current marital status doesn't really do that, I think, so that's why I altered it.

The album cover probably needs a citation to prove that the photo is of Aguilera when she was fifteen. A prior version of this article ([2]) listed Christina Aguilera: A Star Is Made under "References" rather than "Notes" (where it is now), so it's probable that the original author of much of the article used this as a reference for much of the pre-2002 material, but I'm not sure. I didn't remove all of the GQ/Mariah Carey, I tidied it (e.g. copyedited, formatted, brought in line with the MoS, rewrote and rearranged so that it reads better) as I did with the rest of the section. My work can be found here, and as I explained above (#Currently Sourcing Heading Back To Basics Section) I feel it's tidier and a better read than the previous version (where the reader learnt, for example, when "Christina" shot the music video for her new single). It's not referencing that was the main problem with that section, it was stylistic errors and excessive detail.

I know that the other sections are unsourced, but "Vocal profile" sections are notoriously unreliable and there has been consensus in the past that they should be removed, especially if they are unsourced, because they constitute original research in most cases and turn articles into "scorecard"-like analyses (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Archive 2#Vocal profile controversy). Also, they are constantly being edited by self-proclaimed "experts". If such a section is inserted it shouldn't be a list like before, and it should preferably have inline citations (though that's kind of stating the obvious). Extraordinary Machine 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, nothing is going to be done with Extraordinary Machine here thinking it's their page. If EM wanted to do everyone a favor, they would leave. They continually stick behind words like tidying, just to be able to continually vandalize. They broke the rules a million times, so they're not in a good position to help with this page whatsoever. They make up their own rules. This page will be locked until EM leaves. Take a hint. Maddyfan 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm not "they"; it's just one person here, and I don't think this is "my" page.
2. As I requested above provide diff links for where and when I "broke the rules a million times". Feel free to report me at WP:AN/I or WP:AIAV if you believe that to be the case.
3. If you have issues with the explanations for my edits that I have provided above, please share them with us. Obviously we can't contribute to this article if you haven't outlined what is specifically wrong with the reasoning behind my edits. This article will be protected until the dispute is resolved, so re-reading and commenting on my explanations is the next logical step you should take in this discussion.
4. Please, be civil. Extraordinary Machine 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Extraodinary Machine must leave the page

Others cannot work on this page with this person here. They have used up their chances, and there are not enough notices on Wikipedia to help them understand this. Please unlock the page, and please extraodinary machine, leave Christina's page. Thank you for trying, but you're just not contributing to the situation. Everyone's additions were deleted thanks to you. Xtinamoline 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Account created today. Extraordinary Machine 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Before I just used by ISP number. Xtinamoline 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Xtinamoline, please realize that personal attacks, Sockpuppetry and Ownership of articles are against policy. EM can edit the page if he wants to; it's not in your role to tell who can and cannot edit the page. It's not only EM who's caused the article to be locked. Also the contributions are still there. If you want to help contribute, please post your ideas here. I also have reason to believe that you are User:maddyfan in disguise. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you have that wrong. Extraordinary Machine broke the rules. All our additions were deleted without a reason. Edits were done more than 3 times as pointed out, they were not reverts each time as claimed. They think that they own the page, which they do not. This page will not be unlocked until Extraordinary Machine leaves as was already stated. All I'm trying to say is that we're going around in circles here, without coming to a resloution, but again, it is true that Extraordinary Machine did break the rules. So I would say that they're in the wrong. Xtinamoline 12:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If EM broke the rules, tell me which one. here's a list, just tell me. As far as I see, he's done things within policy. I think it's you who is keeping this locked, because of your inablity to work cooperatively with EM. You are wrong about having the article unlocked when EM leaves. It will be unlocked when you and EM can prove that you won't edit war once it's opened. If you continue to try to push EM away from this article, a request for comment will be issued against you (or maddyfan if it's proven that you and her are the same), and you may also be blocked for disruption and personal attacks. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me make it clear a bit, the 3 Revert Rule does not apply to ordinary edits. You revert when you reverse another person's edit, making it look as if the edit never happened. Anybody can edit more than 3 times. They cannot reverse an edit. By the way, EM is one person. Keep that in mind. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that these other people are not me. At any rate, I think we should just all calmly try to work this out. Perhaps if we go through section by section and discuss what main points we want to touch on. That way we can come to some sort of an agreement as to what should stay or leave. I saw about mention about how to cite things such as vocal abilities and what not. I think we can have important info such as that kept in, with [citation needed]. At least that way we'll have noted stuff that needs to be eventually sourced out. I hope that this helps. Maddyfan 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but the style of posts and animosity against EM are too similar for me to pass off. I'm going to look into this issue and, if nessasary, request a checkuser to see if you and Xtinamonline are one and the same. Until then, please don't remove any notice about sockpuppetry. Anyways, It's been agreed on long ago that Vocal Profiles shouldn't be on articles, but a section that writes about the vocal abilities is allowed (But needs to be sourced). this page has info on what can be a source. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the video in question which apparently supports what is written. Maddyfan 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indents). Does the video actually say something in the words of "Christina sung this as a A#"? If not, then it's original research. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of Maddyfan I merely saw a great opportunity to ignite a powder keg and it apparently worked and for that I am amused. So to recap I say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky and respect my authoritah!". Pay homage to the master bow before my ego. Look at it it is so immense! That is all, thank you for your time. 66.68.254.78 07:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you may not be a Maddyfan sockpuppet. You still tried to slow us from getting things done, which caused you to have a 24hour block. BUT you had to vandalize my talk page and try to cause more trouble by attempting to impersonate me here using an open proxy? Everything you post here is put on record. Enough of this, let's get back to having this article up and running before Xtina releases her video! --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with whoever said she needs to leave, she is incapable of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.153.225 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 22 August 2006.

There's a Typo

The sentence "She was a confident and strong performer" (located in the "Biography" section) needs a period to follow it. Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 01:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's a NPOV violation for the article to describe Aguilera as "confident and strong", so the whole sentence will need to go. Thanks for noticing it. Extraordinary Machine 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maddyfan

A request for comment regarding Maddyfan's behaviour on this article and the related talk pages has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maddyfan. Extraordinary Machine 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times mentions us

I've just been informed that this ongoing dispute is mentioned in today's edition of The New York Times. See "Growing Wikipedia Revises Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy". Among other things, it says "The Christina Aguilera entry was frozen this week after after fans of the singer fought back against one user's efforts to streamline it." The story apparently ran on the front page ([3]), and it's also currently the most emailed story. They've even linked directly to this talk page. Extraordinary Machine 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Great... I just heard it on the abc7news as well. Crazy isn't it? Now can we please agree not to edit war, so I can be sure we jkelly/I can unlock this without all hell breaking loose? BTW, I'm adding a Media sightings template to the neverending template section. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Media attention aside, what is the consensus of the editors here? Has some sort of understanding been reached that means that the edit-warring won't start up again? Jkelly

EM and I agree that the header section needs to be reworded because of NPOV issues, as well as its lack of detail. The vocal section needs to either go or have a {{sectfact}} template. There's no sources. Most of the issues with the new album belongs in that article. Maddyfan hasn't said much about it, and there's an anon who intends to purposely disrupt the article. The IP who claimed responsibility for the disruption was blocked first for 24 hours, then 1 month for vandalising my user talk page and trying to impersonate me here. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's try unprotecting and see how it goes. Jkelly 01:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment or two: anyone who is familiar with three women's singing voices can tell that, indeed, Christina Aguilera models herself on both Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey, so I don't know why refering to that was such a bone of contention. Also, since she is married, I don't see why we should not refer to her husband in the article. Finally, and this is just my opinion, I never "colloquially" refer to her as Xtina, and I wonder who outside of fanboys would either. Now, to return to our regularly-scheduled editing... -- Jalabi99 09:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but we need an external reliable source that states Aguilera models her voice on Houston and Carey (or at least makes a comparison) before we can add it to the article. I didn't object to referring to her husband in the article, just in the lead section. As for "colloquially", I don't even know what that means :). Anyway, I've restored my edits to the "2006–present: Back to Basics" section and the diff is here; some of the material has been transferred to the Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album) article. If anybody disagrees with that edit, then please explain why. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indents). That's a lot of content removed. It seems now that at least one quarter of the section is in regards to the Aguilera/Carey issue. Is there a way we can get the other content back, even with a {{fact}} template? Can we get a summary of the style of the album. I understand the album is very new, but we can adapt when the time comes. I've cited a comparison between Houston. Colloquially means: "Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal". [4] --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tip

hey I'm a huge Christina Aguilera fan and I have never made a change or edited anything on here. I like to come to this page to get information on Christina's status (singles, albums). But I think this article is a little too long. Maybe its best to just list the need to know basics about Christina, rather than going into what kind of vocal tone she has and all that stuff. Just a brief history on her childhood, not everything we learned about on VH1 or E!, and a little history on her first, second and third album. I mean, is it necessary to know she made a Pepsi commerical in Europe, just stick to the basics. This article is like reading the transcript from E! True Story or an upcoming Behind The Music eposide. I'm sorry I'm being so negative about this, but I like to visit this site and get informed on her new album. I hope I don't offend anyone for speaking my mind.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.130 (talk • contribs)

I think you have a good plan set, but I also think that her vocal abilities are notable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hey guys, I've been a Christina fan since 1999, and I've followed her life closely thoughout the years, being that 85% of all I listen to is Xtina. I just signed up to help out since we should solve all problems on this page ASAP. I've been the one taking down the album cover at the 'Back to Basics' section because it is a fan made cover and somebody keeps putting it up (yes, I have evidence). Anyways, about her childhood, I would have to re-watch 'Driven' and re-read some past interviews to accurately describe it. As much as Id like to praise Christina's octave-range, there is no source that I know of that states it as official. --Xionel 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming the images are from a CMM Contest Emporium competition. I'm a ChristinaMultimedia manager, and I'll probably ask a director if they can do something about it. I've tried to find sources about her octave range, but there's nothing verifiable about it. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Pic

Okay look, I understand how Wikipedia likes having free pics instead of fair use even if its crappy...but the best free pic we can get is a blurry out of focus one six years ago?--CyberGhostface 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of "fair use" Wikipedia isn't to use copyrighted images just because they look better. Read Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy, which says "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible". It would be more useful for Wikipedia if you (or anyone else) were to email Aguilera fansites and other websites related to her to see if they'd be willing to donate one of their images under a free license. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission if you're not sure what to write. Extraordinary Machine 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll try sending some messages later. (And I'm not being sarcastic, I really appreciate it.)--CyberGhostface 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

NEW PICTURE

Using the recommended template, I sent an e-mail to an administrator of a Christina Aguilera site for use of his pictures. The link to the discussion can be seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Btbshoot_01.jpg --CyberGhostface 00:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Apperance in OutKast Movie

There is no source for that information

2006–present: Heading Back to Basics

The numbers in the brackets, eg:[[20]] are for a reason or can they be removed? Grey Shadow 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Part about "Aguilera revealed her plans on getting pregnant within the next months" should be taken out. I dont recall this quote (is it from Rolling Stone?) But Christina has stated since then that BTB is like having 'twins' and that she doesnt plan on getting pregnant at the moment but looks forward to it in the future. (I believe it was a German article which also talks about the plans for a spanish album)

And the whole Mariah thing is just not important to Xtina's life whatsoever, two lines are really insignificant in the progress of her life, if we dont mention the hundreds of Britney arguments/comparisons we shouldnt mention the tiny Mariah comment. this is not a forum, you wouldnt find something like that on a real encyclopedia.--Xionel 08:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the early life section guys, keep it up--Xionel 08:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Cultural influence" section

This reads like a fan essay. The basic idea is good, but I suggest that it be removed unless we can find and cite reliable sources for it. Extraordinary Machine 19:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Whoever wrote it was biased.

It does have some truth to it. Maybe it should be rewritten in a neutral manner.

"Multiethnic/Multiracial"

How come Christina is no longer tagged as a multiracial or multiethnic singer? She is Irish/German-Ecuadorian, wouldn't that count?130.39.135.219 17:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But is it relavent?

• Ecuadorian simply means you were born in Equador. As far as I understand Christina's father is a white Ecuadorian man of pure European Spanish decent. In fact she gets her blonde hair from him and not her brunette mother. How does that make her multiracial?

Christina's biological father, if you look at her first MTV Diary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5QilzDgEsg&search=Diary%20Christina%20Aguilera) looks like the stereotypical Hispanic man: dark hair, tanned skin, etc. The only person in Christina's near biological family with blonde hair and blue eyes is one of her paternal uncles. Blonde hair and blue eyes are recessive traits that indigious peoples of America picked up from the Spanish, but it would take the genetic disposition for blonde hair/blue eyes from both sides of her family... in other words, the possiblity of blonde hair is circulating in her mother's family too. But if we are going to go by appearance only, then singers such as Mariah Carey shouldn't be classified as multiracial either. Also Christina herself has mentioned her desire to get in touch with her Ecuadorian roots (and she does claim to be latina which according to the US Census is a different ethnicity from "white"), hence the reason she recorded Mi Reflejo and has plans to record another Spanish language album.

• You are sadly mistaken. Christina Aguilera's biological father isn't even in that clip. You have simply sucked information out of your thumb. What does Christina's Spanish Album have to do with her race anyway. White people can speak spanish too. Have you heard of a certain "Rich Kid snob" called Fabian Basabe who is Ecuadorian and famous for his racial slurs. He is a white Ecuadorian. Why can't Christina's father be too. And I don't know which country you come from but the US Census does not have any racial term such as "Latina". It simply means someone who is from Latin america, regardless of race. It does however have a choice of hispanic or non hispanic, but everyone has to choose one of those and then their particular race. Hispanic simply means speaks spanish in America. You can be hispanic and at the same time white, or hispanic and at the same time black. It only refers to four racial groups. Native American, Black, Asian and White. Nothing about "Latina". If you think thats a race I think you need to read the article on latinos here on wikipedia. Christina is a White girl untill proven otherwise.
  • Absolutely nothing to discuss here. If you want to tag Aguilera with a multiracial tag, you must find a source that refers to her as multiracial or biracial. Easy as pie! Mad Jack 00:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR

This states that "If the rules are unhelpful, ignore them as you improve or maintain Wikipedia's quality." Could that apply choosing a better, more recent picture of Christina as opposed to a bad one six years old?--CyberGhostface 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But we're dealing with copyright issues, which in essense is non negotiable. If a free use is available, there's no use for fair use. That tag which is below the fair use image on its description page states that it can only be used when no other free alternative. See Talk:British Shorthair for a similar issue. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PIC

I hope you all enjoy this pic. It's free, completely by Commons. I'm not signing 'cause I'm a brazilian fan, I don't have an ID en American Wiki! See ya!

Bottom of page

Is it just me or is there an "anomaly" at the bottom of the page? I tried to correct but couldn't Mad Jack 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)