Talk:Justin Bieber/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

THIS IS NOT A FORUM

Some of these discussions have started to veer to the "forum" zone (some indirectly) which is warned by the statement "This is not a forum for general discussion of Justin Bieber" at the top; just pointing it out a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. High school student (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

North Korea

Isn't he touring North Korea?--FifthCylon (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, there's a discussion uptop about that--When Chuck Norris takes a step, all humanity dies and gets reborn again Mr. High School Student 15:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasnt 4chan that voted him to go to the great state of North Korea. It was Ebaum...Please fix it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.230.145 (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed please. Just because you think isnt quite enough. I am Ebaum user and those days people were going apeshit with sending bieber to our beloved North Korea. On the other hand i didnt noticed anything on 4chan.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.205.202 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The North Korea part is very Anti-North Korea..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobfrid (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Justin Bieber's "Years active" is supposed to be 2007- present.

Angelpinay8 (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done ...thank you for noticing Moxy (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Stfuomg, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to make some minor changes to Justin Beiber's Wikipedia page.

Stfuomg (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What changes would you like to make? "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Davtra  ^(talk) 09:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

erroneous category???

I noticed he's in the gay musicias category,the rumor has been going around and there is no verification or confirmed source whatsoever, it should be removed, what do you think?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.127.41 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks! –xeno^talk 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He isnt gay so get over yourselves.

Comment

[1]

In response to this statement "really, unsourced content from an admin?". I was merging an article that was solely about Ryan Butler (which he is clearly not an option) but, considering Butler's considerable presence around Beiber, I thought Butler might warrant a merge instead of a flat out delete (and I'm willing for the ppl who work on this page to hash that out). I suddenly had to leave and couldn't find a refernce, but I think his status at Beiber's best freind is pretty uncontested, so I figured someone would add a ref or something. In reality, I don't care, but I was trying to merge two articles when suddenly I had to run.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A few things I noticed

I seriously noticed a few things and the way I say them may naturally come off as negative but could someone unbiased could review this and make the nescesary changes, that would be great.

1. As I look through the sources, most if not all seem very pro bieber, and the age is still widely disputed. Something about saturday night live doesn't really seem to be strong enough arms to hold such a heavy load.

2. In the discussion area, it says its in the project for RB Soul music. Its a whole bunch of teen pop bullshit, can someone actually provide a good reason for that

3. I don't know if the little shit actually is gay, but if noone can provide any different pictures where it isn't acting like it thinks it's a homosexual black rapper, the message might be taken the wrong way.

4. Gay music, Death metal, Metalcore, Homocore, Pop, R&B[2][3][4]. From left to right, I must disagree with #2,3, and 6.

5. As I laugh my ass off( seriously it'll hurt whenever I shit from now on) looking through the "Image" section, I notice some wording that could probably be changed.

6.Explanations as to why Bieber has been targeted include his success at such a young age, and "ultra-trendy" image (who decides what is trendy and what is ultra?"; Nick Collins of The Daily Telegraph speculated that "Bieber's character also appears to strike a particularly sour note with his internet critics, with many remarks commenting on his youthful appearance, his teen-pop songs, his image as a heart-throb to young teenage girls and his manner of speech".[57] a. Can someone explain what the fuck a heartthrob is? Some sort of lesbian crush? b. "youthful appearance" why not just say it looks it its 12 and sounds like a 5 year old girl "manner of speech" can it just bluntly say it talks like a wigger and has a really really really really high pitched voice. If someone with no prior knowldge about bieber read this article, what would they think was being said? Manner of speech could mean it had a lisp and sounded like a crackhead duck. You cannot alter a quote, so I suggest specifying what some of it meant in a following sentence.

7. And just a few comments after reading the whole article while Im writing here. I hate Obama more knowing it let that little sound terrorist in what is most likely the most powerful single structure on Earth. CSI is ruined for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.33.239 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

✗ Not done Please avoid using biased assumptions and making negative comments. None of the things listed will be added or changed. Please dont edit unless they are considered to be constructive, which these are definitely not. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of what the first commenter had said in this section, but it's as if instead of getting the most reliable, mainstream news of Bieber, you fished through the web and got the ULTRA-POSITIVE news of him. --Jacobfrid (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What is there negative to talk about. This is a simple biography. What has Bieber done that has been negative? 21:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

How about putting a note about how many people mock him claiming he has a girly voice. Also you might want to put a note about people accussing him of being gay. and the fact that many people think he's only popular because of his looks and he has no real talent. I am not trying to vandalize the page. i dont think these are real facts, but people always say it and they should be noted as rumors people started. 24.45.87.159 (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Already covered in Justin_Bieber#Target_for_criticism_and_pranksters. Also, we don't include rumors per WP:BLP. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but you should at least make a mention of his voice sounding like a girl according to some people because there is no note of that. 24.45.87.159 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a POV statement...pls see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.Moxy (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Only if it's written as a fact. if written to say many people have that opinion, which facebook can prove true, it is still neutral. 24.45.87.159 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Facebook, twitter, and youtube are not reliable. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For facts, Facebook is unreliable. but it does show opinions. the number of groups and pages all with many fans about Bieber's "girly" voice show that it is a common opinion. 24.45.87.159 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Again thats non neutral pov. Its not going to be added. Every person has fans that dislike them, comes with the territory. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps (24.45.87.159) should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Contentious labels as well.Moxy (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This source says "He resembles a sweet spaniel puppy" and "He also still looks about 12 years old." Also mentions the rumour that "He’s gay". There's probably a few others that talk about this. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Again this our POV ..in fact the editor even makes this clear by saying "With so much media coverage has come scores of associated hoaxes, rumours, spoof sites, fake Twitter accounts and YouTube parodies"Moxy (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so against this? All I went is "high-pitched voice" be added to the list of reasons he is made fun of. 24.45.87.159 (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say we are against mention of this until there is a credible source by a well know critic of music who describes his voice in proper musical terms (octave range) - vocal range and Scientific pitch notation.99.240.182.253 (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that it is mentioned in a neutral manner..i see the article referring to his manner of speech just after all the youthful comments -->"Explanations as to why Bieber has been targeted include his success at such a young age, and ultra-trendy image; Nick Collins of The Daily Telegraph speculated that "Bieber's character also appears to strike a particularly sour note with his internet critics, with many remarks commenting on his youthful appearance, his teen-pop songs, his image as a heart-throb to young teenage girls and his manner of speech Moxy (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That is just about how he talks. People make fun of him because they say he sounds like a girl. That should be under reasons why he is criticized. Of course it'll have to be in better word choice. 24.45.87.159 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That whole section is disgusting. I myself am in no way a fan of his, but criticizing in that way on wikipedia is undeserved--leave that to urbandictionary. Rumors should not be posted, no matter their degree or severity. It's appalling and bigoted that one would request "he's gay" be added to his list of criticism. Criticism from an expert of pop music? Surely justifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.65.179 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In recent clips, such as this one I wouldn't say low pitched but I wouldn't say high pitched either. Yet he seems to have as many "haters" as ever so I don't follow the logic that voice pitch is an issue.Bdell555 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

JUSTIN BIEBER IS AN AMAZING PERSON WITH A GREAT HEART ALL OF THE ABOVE CRITICISM'S ARENT TRUE. He is ssooo talented and i dont know how he can handle you haters. He is an amaziiiing boy and he is a greaat singer! So what if he HAD a high voice. So did michael Jackson. And most of his high pitch is studio edits i have seen him live many times and he is not as high pitch. He is absolutely not gay. And i dont get why you think its "Cool" TO not like him. He didnt do anything to you. He is just a normal boy who had a dream and hit it big. I know your jealous of him and the ladies, and do you honestly think if he was gay he would have this many fans all claiming to be mrs.bieber, and he has had gf's and can get one any day, unlike you people. SO stop. MEET HIM THEN JUDGE HIM. -Skylar/bieberimasinger on twitter

Not knowing "German" — proposals

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Gossip and trivia closed per snowball and not news. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -

Worth documenting I feel, due to the significant coverage making this a notable incident in Bieber's career. I propose something like:

In May 2010, Bieber was involved in an incident over his understanding of the word "German". He was in New Zealand and was interviewed on C4's Select Live by Drew Neemia who asked him the question "Bieber is German for basketball. True or False?" Bieber seemed confused and answered "what?" Neemia repeated the question and showed Bieber the question on a card. Bieber was still puzzled, and replied "German? I don’t know what that means ... We don’t say that in America." The incident became a viral video and lead to accusations that Bieber did not know what "German" meant. Bieber replied on Twitter that he thought that Neemia had said "Jewman", refering to the New Zealander's accent. To prove his point, he linked to a clip of himself counting in German and translating his own name.

Everybody is free to edit the proposal as they please. I hope we can get consensus for its insertion. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose : HAH, no way. WP:NOTNEWS. "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This is the case here, its the same thing as adding he tweeted someones elses phone number for revenge. It made news, but its not relevant. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: This is not something that I would see in an encyclopedia. If it was added, the question is, so what? This information is suitable for gossip and fan sites, however.  Davtra  ^(talk) 06:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Writers on WP (especially those who focus on current pop stars and celebs like this one) tend to forget to write with an encyclopedic view. Pretend we're writing the article from 2020. Should the article provide any details about this item? For the "incident" which is the subject of this thread, the answer's got to be no. Nobody will care, because it is unimportant. Leave this thing out, as well as the water-bottle thing, breaking news about his acne, and any similar non-durable event-lets that will come up while he is walking around and living in the limelight. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oh dear God no. Theleftorium ^(talk) 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I am generally an inclusionist but WP:UNDUE weight becomes an issue here if too much time is spent on the myriad reasons why the article subject has so many "haters." Most of these reasons are trivial, gossip magazine material as opposed to encyclopedic. That said, I see potential for using this material as a footnote to a section or sentence on his New Zealand tour in the main body that said NZ was one of his most frustrating stops, or something like that.Bdell555 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

the new picture

the new picture is representative of justin bieber but i cant help thinking there are more current photos of him on the internet... there is room for old insults towards him when pictures like this are on big things like wikipedia and i think there may be better pictures out there. so my request is simple... please, ANYONE, find a better picture of him, one thats a bit more representative of him TODAY! thank you "D xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalsie18 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current picture. And there are not any more free pictures other then the ones we have currently. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not as easy as it sounds. If an image is found, the copyright status needs to be determined before use. Are you aware of the copyright policy on Wikipedia?  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"More current"? It's from Easter 2010. That's only four months ago. Anyway, the photo's actually quite good. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo is not perfect because subject is not looking at the camera. I think it wins out as the first photo over the New York City photo only because the NYC photo is now almost a year old and accordingly appropriate in the career history section.Bdell555 (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than the NYC event this is about one of the only other free photos of him. So be thankful we could get one this recent of him. Candyo32 02:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Justin's tattoo

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1639469/20100518/bieber_justin.jhtml

This link shows a news item at this time missing on Justin's page. It might be relevant because of the relatively young age of obtaining a tattoo, and the family tradition cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonguepiercing (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Im going to oppose. Its not detrimental to his image or career. It may have made headlines but that doesnt necessarily mean it gets to be added. Its kinda fan facty. Think about his career in 5-10 years and your going to read his biography here, would you really care that he got a tattoo? I dont think so. It would be different if he had multiple tattoos and they were apart of his image. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see any value adding it to this encyclopedia.  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - extremely trivial. Airplaneman ✈ 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect birthplace

This TMZ pdf of the kids birth cert clearly states London, Ontario as the birthplace. Do with it what you will. Sky83 (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that as well. It should be noted that Stratford is a small community, so it would not be at all unusual for a woman living there to travel to London in order to give birth. A birth certificate indicates the city where one was born, regardless of where one's family lives. So while London would be his place of birth he probably never lived there and went to Stratford with his mother right after he was born. That would still make Stratford a correct place to list as his place of "origin", even if it is not his place of birth. But adding London as his place of birth makes sense too. 99.192.76.85 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

How's that then? –xeno^talk 13:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks right to me. Is it possible to add a link to TMZ to support the place of birth claim? 99.192.76.85 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine to me too :). Sky83 (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This would be most beneifical on the IMDb for his listing, since it incorrectly states his birth place as Stratford. But the out-of-controlness has doezens of websites listing he was born in Stratford, so this acturate birth information will just get lost in the wash. I'm from London. Macshill (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 125.162.46.83, 22 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}
125.162.46.83 (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Occupation = Singer, songwriter, musician, Dancer

✗ Not done Thank you for the idea and contribution, unfortunately he is not a dancer, the fact the he likes to and can dance doesnt qualify him as a "dancer". Further more this would need a reliable source. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How To Rap book?

I read that Justin Bieber is using a book called “How To Rap” by Paul Edwards to learn how to rap and improve his rapping… if anyone knows more, please add to the page. 86.96.227.90 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As a young artist we can be sure that Justin is studying his craft in many forms like...books , voice tutors, musical teachers/experts as well as seeking advise from fellow artist. I don't believe we should list/mention every thing/time/person he has turned to in the pursuit of mastering his current occupation. That said i am sure one of his many fans websites would have this type of trivial information.Moxy (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The sixth sense?

Why is there a "sixth sense" listing in Justin Bieber's filmatography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.89.186 (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue, ive removed it, i guess it was overlooked when it was added. Thanks for noticing. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 61.133.252.205, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Justin Bieber is also associated with Ludacris

61.133.252.205 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the idea but he is in no way detrimental to his career. He simply collaborated with Bieber. He did not sign him, he doesn't write his songs or anything along those lines, they simply sang a song together. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

4chan.org

4chan.org is not a reputable source for trends. Why is it referenced multiple times in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.244.159 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

4chan is not used as a source in the article. However, as other sources implicate it in certain activities involving Bieber, it is mentioned in the article in conjunction with those incidents. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 125.162.45.35, 12 September 2010

(copy of entire article deleted)

Not done: Please provide a description of what should be changed—which section, changing text from what to what, and based on what source. It is not feasible to compare the text you copied and pasted to determine what should be changed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dapeeps, 12 September 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapeeps (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Not sure exactly what you want. —Half Price 16:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced and unmentioned in article category "Canadian people of German descent"

{{editsemiprotected}} Category Category:Canadian people of German descent is not supported by article content, let alone by a reference visible in the article - hidden comments don't count. Should either be completely removed as violation of wp:BLPCAT or explicitly mentioned in the article supported by the hidden reference given. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's supported by the source, just not explicitly mentioned in the text. I'm trying to think of a good way to work in that he has a German great-grandfather, especially since it's not specified whether said ancestor is on his mother's or father's side. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I mean,  Done Removed. Not clearly stated elsewhere that Bieber is of German descent. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this info is trivial and not related to his personal identity or why he is notable. If there isn't any smooth way to work this info into the article, it probably does not belong. If not in the article, there is no support for it being a category either. He has 8 great-grandparents, one of whom is German as supported by a German language reference - ethnicity is pretty diluted. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

VMA lip sync

I'm aware that this will be a losing battle with your million dollar hype machine, but there are dozens of sources pointing out that Bieber lip synced during the 2010 VMAs. I have posted a source from The Today Show. You know, the longest running morning show in TV history??? Apparently that is not good enough for you. So be it. DFS (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In ten years are you really going to care he lip synced one performance? No. Read WP:RECENTISM. It would be different and worth noting if he has never sang live in his career, 99% percent of the time he does. (and most of the performance was live except for when he was dancing.) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he lip synced it not notable - everyone does it for these types of performances. The criticism in the reference about doing it poorly is a valid critique of of a performance notable enough to be added to the article. If the performance itself meets WP:RECENTISM than criticisms of that performance should be permitted as well. Of course the source of that criticism could be discounted as they don't have a reputation for objective artistic criticism. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If this were Britney's infamous lipping at the 2007 VMA's that would be different. But no, this isn't notable. Candyo32 21:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

lip syncing is the norm...and is simply a part of the music industry..not notable at all.Moxy (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again the criticism in the reference is not that he lip synced, it is that he did it so poorly. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You see thats the problem you say "that he did it so poorly"...who is to say its not a technical problem and was all the stoned audio guys fault. Could have been a delay for him or even for us the audience/viewers.... See were i am going with this train of thinking. As i say its simply a part of the music biz and happens daily all around the world... Moxy (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And you seriously think this is so notable it needs to be included in his bio? No its not notable, and even if it were notable, this is a statement from ONE critic, so therefore it is biased. Candyo32 03:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, all-- I started this discussion, thanks for contributing. I agree, from reading a good number articles, in a few things... -There is a long history of musicians lip-synching on television. Personally, I see it all the time, and it is more prominent on live shows. It happens, as does a lot of lousy lip-synching. -At this point in his career, the lip-synch itself by JB is not notable as I think poor lip-synching is not notable. -It may be notable if this occurs as a pattern in the future, but it is not unusual. DFS (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

# 1 target of insults on YouTube

Is it worth mentioning that one cannot watch a single video of any artist without scrolling down the comment section only to read endless complaints about Bieber? Some even going as far as to plan attacks on Justin Bieber videos (apparently those idiots don't realize that they're increasing his views by going on his videos, and therefore increasing his overall popularity as well).Surely I can't be the only person to notice this phenomenon... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• True, he may be a target of insults, but #1 is an overstatement for an encyclopedia. _{Besides, YouTube is probably the #1 target of insults on YouTube.} mechamind90 15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He has the most dislikes of any person. The dislikes outnumber the likes for most of his videos. This should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.5.250 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.127.3.31, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

This entry is filled with references to male genitalia in the middle of sentences. And then I stopped reading. Please clean it up -- many kids looking at this. 71.127.3.31 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe this has already been removed from the article, please identify specific passages if not. –xeno^talk 20:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.114.235.193, 24 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Well, it's vandalized by some funny guy. Seems like Semi-Protect isn't enough?

88.114.235.193 (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done SpigotMap 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Controvers

Add "2010 Controversy" article about his most recent claims that raises a question is he clinically insane for comparing himself to Kurt Cobain. http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2010/09/23/1285267657-cobainimage.gif - would be an ok example of response to his imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.136.70 (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, observations about Bieber made in blogs are not appropriate for the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

4chan.org

4chan.org is not a reputable source for trends. Why is it referenced multiple times in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.244.159 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

4chan is not used as a source in the article. However, as other sources implicate it in certain activities involving Bieber, it is mentioned in the article in conjunction with those incidents. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 125.162.45.35, 12 September 2010

(copy of entire article deleted)

Not done: Please provide a description of what should be changed—which section, changing text from what to what, and based on what source. It is not feasible to compare the text you copied and pasted to determine what should be changed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dapeeps, 12 September 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapeeps (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Not sure exactly what you want. —Half Price 16:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced and unmentioned in article category "Canadian people of German descent"

{{editsemiprotected}} Category Category:Canadian people of German descent is not supported by article content, let alone by a reference visible in the article - hidden comments don't count. Should either be completely removed as violation of wp:BLPCAT or explicitly mentioned in the article supported by the hidden reference given. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's supported by the source, just not explicitly mentioned in the text. I'm trying to think of a good way to work in that he has a German great-grandfather, especially since it's not specified whether said ancestor is on his mother's or father's side. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I mean,  Done Removed. Not clearly stated elsewhere that Bieber is of German descent. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this info is trivial and not related to his personal identity or why he is notable. If there isn't any smooth way to work this info into the article, it probably does not belong. If not in the article, there is no support for it being a category either. He has 8 great-grandparents, one of whom is German as supported by a German language reference - ethnicity is pretty diluted. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.127.3.31, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

This entry is filled with references to male genitalia in the middle of sentences. And then I stopped reading. Please clean it up -- many kids looking at this. 71.127.3.31 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe this has already been removed from the article, please identify specific passages if not. –xeno^talk 20:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.114.235.193, 24 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Well, it's vandalized by some funny guy. Seems like Semi-Protect isn't enough?

88.114.235.193 (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done SpigotMap 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

VMA lip sync

I'm aware that this will be a losing battle with your million dollar hype machine, but there are dozens of sources pointing out that Bieber lip synced during the 2010 VMAs. I have posted a source from The Today Show. You know, the longest running morning show in TV history??? Apparently that is not good enough for you. So be it. DFS (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In ten years are you really going to care he lip synced one performance? No. Read WP:RECENTISM. It would be different and worth noting if he has never sang live in his career, 99% percent of the time he does. (and most of the performance was live except for when he was dancing.) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he lip synced it not notable - everyone does it for these types of performances. The criticism in the reference about doing it poorly is a valid critique of of a performance notable enough to be added to the article. If the performance itself meets WP:RECENTISM than criticisms of that performance should be permitted as well. Of course the source of that criticism could be discounted as they don't have a reputation for objective artistic criticism. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If this were Britney's infamous lipping at the 2007 VMA's that would be different. But no, this isn't notable. Candyo32 21:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

lip syncing is the norm...and is simply a part of the music industry..not notable at all.Moxy (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again the criticism in the reference is not that he lip synced, it is that he did it so poorly. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You see thats the problem you say "that he did it so poorly"...who is to say its not a technical problem and was all the stoned audio guys fault. Could have been a delay for him or even for us the audience/viewers.... See were i am going with this train of thinking. As i say its simply a part of the music biz and happens daily all around the world... Moxy (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And you seriously think this is so notable it needs to be included in his bio? No its not notable, and even if it were notable, this is a statement from ONE critic, so therefore it is biased. Candyo32 03:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, all-- I started this discussion, thanks for contributing. I agree, from reading a good number articles, in a few things... -There is a long history of musicians lip-synching on television. Personally, I see it all the time, and it is more prominent on live shows. It happens, as does a lot of lousy lip-synching. -At this point in his career, the lip-synch itself by JB is not notable as I think poor lip-synching is not notable. -It may be notable if this occurs as a pattern in the future, but it is not unusual. DFS (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To add a slight note, the SNL lip-synching incident involving Ashlee Simpson was considered notable enough to be posted on her Wikipedia bio, yet Justin Bieber's lip-synching is not notable enough? Sounds like some personal convictions and double standards. Either that, or the Simpson article needs to be edited as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.204.254 (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Stating something exists in another article is not a valid argument. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose addition of lip-synch I do not believe it to be notable at all. Aside from the lipping, I found the performance to be quite in sync and well executed, sorry if you didn't like it. Even if this were the "Britney Spears VMA" incident, I would think twice about adding it as well. Secondly, I didn't find Bieber's lipping to be that obvious. He didn't use the studio version, he used a pre-recorded version so not to make it obvious, so I don't think it was a big deal. I found it to be a very high-energy and fun performance, better than most of his past ones.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Controvers

Add "2010 Controversy" article about his most recent claims that raises a question is he clinically insane for comparing himself to Kurt Cobain. http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2010/09/23/1285267657-cobainimage.gif - would be an ok example of response to his imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.136.70 (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, observations about Bieber made in blogs are not appropriate for the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.217.112.5, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftnonline.com.br%2Fnoticias%2Fgente%2520e%2520tv%2F13%2C46208%2C25%2C09%2Cthalia-atua-com-justin-bieber-em-lawamp%3Border%3A-special-victims-unit.shtml&sl=pt&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Justin Bieber is set to guest star in an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit with Thalía.

66.217.112.5 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Can you find a better source and detail where and what you would like to insert? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Planet Lazer incident

I've removed the alleged assault from the article. Based on news stories at News1130.com, there's a lot of gossip-blog speculation and very little factual information out there right now. Accordingly, under WP:BLP, nothing should go into the article based on a statement by a celebrity blogger. —C.Fred (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Canadian police have now announced that they are investigating Mr. Bieber on suspicion of aggravated assault against the 12-year-old boy who shouted "faggot" at him twice. Mardiste (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a developing story, we need to wait until everything comes out and is verified by RELIABLE sources. To correct your factual inaccuracies, TMZ has reported that previous news reports were wrong and Bieber was not the instigator of the assault, and moved himself away from the incident. Candyo32

# 1 target of insults on YouTube

Is it worth mentioning that one cannot watch a single video of any artist without scrolling down the comment section only to read endless complaints about Bieber? Some even going as far as to plan attacks on Justin Bieber videos (apparently those idiots don't realize that they're increasing his views by going on his videos, and therefore increasing his overall popularity as well).Surely I can't be the only person to notice this phenomenon... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• True, he may be a target of insults, but #1 is an overstatement for an encyclopedia. _{Besides, YouTube is probably the #1 target of insults on YouTube.} mechamind90 15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He has the most dislikes of any person. The dislikes outnumber the likes for most of his videos. This should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.5.250 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything that was said. I think it should be added that since I don't know... one year may be, there have been a hate campaign on YouTube that still can be seen on this web. It has increased in months and it really has a dimension that even me can perceive. I mean, I'm from Catalonia (I usually edit in the Catalan Wikipedia and sometimes visit this wiki) and from a non-speaking english world that's seen every day in a lot of videos on YouTube. Most people in the world who know who is Justin Bieber know that a lot of people who dislike or hate him as well. It really should be added. If wikipedia has to be objective...it's not being in this article. Seriously, keep this in mind, it's important, besides surely there's people every day who lacks this content. Thank you very much. My user page in the Catalan Wikipedia --Catalaalatac (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Teen pop

I'm going ahead and adding 'Teen Pop' to the genre list. Toa Nidhiki05 01:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The infoboxes stick to main genres, and teen pop is a subgenre of pop. Candyo32 01:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true; sub-genres or fusion genres are added quite frequently to infoboxes; see Miley Cyrus, Jonas Brothers, Katy Perry, Lady GaGa, etc. Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Only one of those articles is a GA, and it is Lady Gaga, therefore per WP:OTHERSTUFF the only article that can be used as a basis. The Lady Gaga article does not list subgenres. Candyo32 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake; however, there is no policy against it, and I would think specifying a genre would help the project. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As stated before, all the other named articles are not high quality articles and Lady Gaga and other GA articles do not list subgenres. Concerning the teen pop genre itself, Bieber is not always going to be teen pop, so that is another added reason. Candyo32 14:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you want to remove it because he won't always be it? To my knowledge, Bon Jovi and Europe are not glam metal anymore, but is that a valid reason for not showing it in their infobox? For all intensive purposes, Bieber is, and will be, teen pop for the foreseeable future. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's pretty incomparable, because those two bands you named probably could be glam rock if they still wanted to. But could it be imagined in the coming years with Bieber as thirty years old singing teen pop? Also they need to be in general terms. Bieber may do teen pop. But we list pop because all of his songs are pop, but not all of them are teen pop. Candyo32 21:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As with other Canadian teen idol's (even the first Paul Anka) i believe its best to have Pop as the genre in the info box. However we should be mentioning in the lead hes a teen idol, as this is his claim to fame thus far. Just like with other Canadian teen idols from my day --> Paul Anka and Bobby Curtola.Moxy (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase is "all intents & purposes" because it referring to your purpose or your intent. There's no such thing as an "intensive purpose". Daecon (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@Candyo32: Ever heard of WP:CRYSTAL? We can't predict the future, so your logic is flawed. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ehh, I think you are trying to use policy to back up your viewpoint in a stance where it doesn't work. Logically, a thirty year old won't be singing teen pop. Lets don't deviate from the fact that main genres are only listed in GA's and FA's. Candyo32 21:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Then how about you change it from "Teen Pop" after Justin turns 30? That way, everyone wins. It seems fairly straight forward that he's most famous for singing "Teen Pop" at the moment. Daecon (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You people are still refraining from the fact that per FA and GA articles such as Lady Gaga, we need to stick to main genres not any sort of subgenre in the infobox. Candyo32 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Subgenres actually aren't banned per se, it's just preferable to stick with root genres where an artist has performed a wide number of genres under the main one. For example:

• Kesha is listed as Electropop, dance-pop as those are the two major genres she performs.
• Lady Gaga is listed as Pop, dance as she has performed a variety of genres under those main ones.

• Radiohead is listed as Alternative rock, electronic, experimental rock as those are the major genres they perform.
• The Beatles are listed as Rock, pop as they have performed a very wide variety of genres under those main root genres.

Bieber is primarily known for his contributions to teen pop and R&B, and thus I don't think listing teen pop in place of pop would be a problem - in fact, it would probably be more accurate. And the argument that he could not be a teen pop singer at the age of 30 is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Not that that matters anyway - we encompass all of an artist's work in their genres, not just what they're performing at the moment. Which is why Pink's listing includes R&B even though she no longer performs the genre. –Chase (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You do make very good points that I had not thought about. With that said, I still think that pop rather than teen pop would be better stated overall. Candyo32 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, please remember Other stuff exists; one article may not affect another. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin Plays banjo?

Justin states in the video here: http://www.4tnz.com/content/justins-secret-talent (toward the end) that he's played banjo for 8 years. He doesn't seem to be joking, but I haven't found additional references for this. Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindingtheory (talk • contribs) 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Object of critics on YouTube

I already said it before, but I repeat it again because I did not have any answer. I think it should be added that since... one year may be, there have been a hate campaign on YouTube that still can be seen on this web. It has increased in months and it really has a dimension that even me can perceive. I mean, I'm from Catalonia (I usually edit in the Catalan Wikipedia and sometimes visit this wiki) and from a non-speaking english world that's seen every day in a lot of videos on YouTube. Most people in the world who know who is Justin Bieber know that a lot of people is disliking or hating him as well. What they [the haters] don't know is that hating him and criticizing him helps making him more famous, so people even talk more about him (wheter is good or not). I strongly think that it really should be added. If wikipedia has to be objective...it's not being in this article. Seriously, keep this in mind, it's important, besides surely there's people every day who lacks this content. Thank you very much. --Catalaalatac (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Viral "pedophile" exposé video

Justin Bieber Is a Pedophile - News 09/30/10 MUST SEE is a YouTube video which has received 4.5 million views since it was posted on September 30, 2010. What is the story on this viral event and why isn't it being discussed in the article? __meco (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, are you joking? This is obviously a retarded and phony video--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. This is a viral video that has received 4.5 million views. Its focus is obviously on Bieber. If any discussion on this can be found in reliable sources this should be included into this article. __meco (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm missing more than the point. I don't see what importance you see in this video. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it holds any weight or importance. There are parody videos with 30 million views, yet they are utter nonsense.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is in something meco said: "If any discussion on this can be found in reliable sources." Since no reliable sources have been mentioned in the discussion, there's nothing on which to base any possible article text. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

...It's a story from The Onion. Therefore it is a parody. Not real. Not notable.  狐 FOX  00:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Being a parody doesn't make it inadmissible for this article. Having no references from reliable sources, however, does preclude it being mentioned. Also, that situation changes the moment such coverage is presented. __meco (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of Justin Bieber

Just some food for thought! --Beanygirl80 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: Justin_Bieber#Target_for_critics.2C_pranksters.2C_and_parodies. Happy reading, Airplaneman ✈ 01:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter?

Justin Bieder is the 2nd most popular user on Twitter (source: http://twittercounter.com/pages/100) which is currently not shown in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisVeldhuijzenvanZanten (talk • contribs) 09:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER, and Wikipedia is not a social network. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Justin plays trumpet?

I know the MTV profile lists the trumpet as one of his instruments (this is the source and the reason for its inclusion in the article), but I can't find any evidence of him actually being able to play it. There is a video of him on Youtube playing the trumpet (the video is a year old) and he can barely play five notes on the instrument. I believe Bieber can play guitar and piano just fine ... but not the trumpet. ... Soeey forgot to sign AppaAliApsa (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Image

I have added that he has over 6 million followers on Twitter (after checking his Twitter account) in the "Image" section. But, I can't find a source for it. If anybody does, please add the source. Halemane (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Because there is no source, I have reverted back to the prior figure. If 4.5 millions is all we can back up with a source, that's all we can list in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Won't [2] do? Or am I missing something? —Half Price 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There is this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Because citing to Twitter for facts is generally discouraged, it would be an ongoing battle to keep from having a cite from being reverted, simply because many people are reluctant to make exceptions to rules and that's especially the case for the type of editors attracted to this page. I've tried it before, in other words, and ended up in an editing battle. It doesn't make any sense, because any other source is just going to get their information on the number of followers from Twitter, but it is what it is.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a new Picture of Mr. Beiber. It's his new haircut. I don't know how to add it. http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/bieb-haircut.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobStaven (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures would need to be freely licensed and should be without watermarks, both of which that photo isn't, so we'll have to wait for another. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Grammy incident

The following is my suggestion for a brief description of the Esperanza Spalding Wikipedia defacement incident. Apparently there is some reluctance on the part of some other editors to include this.

2011 Grammy incident

Following Esperanza Spalding’s win for best new artist, one or more vandals , presumably Justin Bieber fans, defaced Spalding's Wikipedia page. One user wrote[BLP vio redacted]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstarret (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourced? No, Relevant? No, now drop it. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think that would be relevant to mention at Spalding's page. It's certainly not relevant to mention it here, especially since blaming it on Bieber fans is synthesis. —C.Fred (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this entire thread should be removed as a BLP violation. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice that I was careful to say "presumably". It is an interesting part of the whole story, and is certainly not a BLP violation, especially on a talk page. As for sourcing, there is plenty, including the talk page on Spalding's page, which is a verifiable history. I would be glad to include it. So the only real issue is this: is it an appropriate inclusion? I maintain that there is plenty of evidence that articles on other artists have stories about the actions of their fans, for instance, the Beatles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles. —Jstarret

Someone, somewhere, defacing a Wikipedia page, is not notable. This page is vandalized all the time. There are no reliable, secondary sources to back this. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 06:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BLP is valid across all namespaces including talkpages. As far as actions of fans they have to be reported by reliable sources WP:RS and not by Wikipedia editors. See WP:OR. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not notable. Candyo32 14:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Haircut

Not that I care since I'm not a Bieber fan, but I live near where he was born and have a very slight interest in the news. You may want to make note of this and perhaps get an updated photo for the infobox.

Justin Bieber Haircut

To think I heard it on the T.V. news and went searching.

My job is done. CycloneGU (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How does a haircut have relevance to the article? ℥^nding·start 00:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a Wall Street Journal article about the haircut's affect on his career and how it was "calculated", which could possibly be used in the future in the "Image" section. To the updated photo thing, there are very few free images of Bieber available already, so there is certainly not one of his haircut now. Candyo32 00:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on that candy. It seems like a lot of people are doing wild. I have no clue why though. It doesn't make sense to me. I read a report saying he lost 80,000 followers because of it. o.0 ℥^nding·start 20:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported: Roppo's arrest

"The police arrested an Island Records senior vice-president, James A. Roppo, reportedly for hindering the police's crowd control efforts by not sending a timely message on Twitter as instructed by the police."

The article provided as reference only mentions the arrest - it doesn't cite the reason. Needs further reference or deletion of reason. Roy Laurie (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Violent actions

I can't be sure whether this video is correct or not but that looks like Justin to me. i think it was 3 days before today bieber was notedly exiting a wrestling match the camera men said that then he then started freaking out and also being very frustrated towards his girl friend, after that not long after he went on hitting her. he has has now been placed in a federal penitentiary within florida, there is vid clips of the beating. Here's the link. (wildfootagenow.au.mn­) Again I'm not sure that this is really Justin Beiber so you might wanna check it out yourself or consider it under the headline 'Rumours of violence'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saim.urman (talk • contribs) 13:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why??

Why is Justin Beiber full protected????? Shouldnt he be semi protected?????

By Canihuan300 —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

Nope. The page was being vandalized while it was semi-protected; the upgrade to full protection was in order. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Have we tried "Pending-changes level 2 with Semi-protection" ? As reviewers have a reasonable editing history and dont see why they are being excluded. Wikipedia:Pending changes#Scope, deployment, and removal Never mind forgot the trial it just ended Moxy (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Teen Choice Awards

You need to add the awards he won at the 2011 Teen Choice Awards. He's won about three already. Kansas212 (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Question.

Is the protection working? --KF5LLG (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? hare j 20:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Uncited statements

Justin Bieber's biography is RIDDLED with uncited statements, these uncited statements don't actually have a tag. I wonder why this is ? Antocc (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Paternity allegations

See: Wikipedia:BLPN#Justin_Bieber for ongoing talk about this topic

What, nothing on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.86.168 (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A section on the paternity allegations has been added but repeatedly removed. It should not be removed again unless someone can clearly show why it's not encyclopaedic, and I will be most displeased with the next person who dishonestly calls it OR as a pretext for removal. --FergusM1970 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:BLPN#Justin_Bieber. You are invited to participate there. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove this allegation from the article unless you can show that it is not notable, relevant or well-documented, as per WP:BLP. --FergusM1970 (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure a whole section is needed at all - the whole section is full of accusations of some sort or another. Anyways could we get all involed to pls come to Wikipedia:BLPN#Justin_Bieber - as the edit war does not help anyone.Moxy (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected request

<s>{{editprotected}}</s>

A consensus appears to have arisen on the blpn thread for the addition of a small comment about this issue, so I have posted this here with an edit request. To the admin actioning this request, Please allow a decent length of time for any objections to arise here - I am posting a link to this request on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Justin Bieber - Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposed addition to be added to the end of this Justin Bieber#2011–present: Never Say Never film, Under the Mistletoe and Believe section, separate, and not connected to the other content already in the section.

In late 2011, Bieber faced a [[Paternity (law)|paternity]] allegation, which he denied.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/15564267|title=Justin Bieber 'dad' claim denied by star's management|publisher=Radio 1- Newsbeat|date=November 2, 2011|accessdate=November 6, 2011}}</ref>

• - Article is unprotected now so there is no need for the edit request. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Debut Album Songs Charted on the Billboard Hot 100

In the second paragraph of the article, it states: He became the first artist to have seven songs from a debut album chart on the Billboard Hot 100. I'm not sure if you mean the first artist or the first artist/band. If you mean artist/band, the Beatles had also 7 songs from their debut album Please Please Me that charted anywhere from #1 and #67 on the Billboard Hot 100. In that case, Justin wasn't the first. 75.128.132.12 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if the source was misquoted. The source says, "He is also the first artist to have seven songs from a debut CD on Billboard's Hot 100 chart." Someone might have assumed CD is equivalent to album. Obviously, there were no CD's when the Beatles were operational. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But did the Beatles have seven songs from their debut album chart? Two of the songs charted before the album was released. Does that still count as charting from the album? —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And looking at The Beatles discography, I only come up with six songs off Please Please Me in the Hot 100. Do we have a reliable source that says there were seven from the album? —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• note - although the edit is not actioned I have removed the edit request as the article is unprotected now and there was a dispute about this request. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit seems to have been a hoax at best

[3] appears to make any mention of a paternity lawsuit moot - Wikipedia is not here to ensure long life to tabloid hoaxes or worse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Collect.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you also Collect. And to think the amount of edit-warring and comments at BLPN. I hope something is learnt from all this, but I will not hold my breath. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Lesson: never hold your breath waiting for common sense at Wikipedia!Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well said, as usual. :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Justin Bieber in the awards EMA cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Justin Bieber in the awards EMA cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

correction to school

the name of the school attended by Justin Bieber is spelled Jeanne Sauvé (the associated link does contain the correct spelling) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelesuis (talk • contribs) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

source

How about adding this as a source for his Christian faith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZf_lfw2XPg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.252.74 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that the clips are so short, they might be out of context. Plus, the individual appearance aren't sourceable—that's what would need to be sourced, not the montage. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Justin Beaver"?

Really? --79.73.124.140 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. I never really liked this either. If noone objects in the near future I will remove it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Justin Beaver article has the same disclaimer, the other direction. Where's the harm? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds more like a joke because it is rather implausible to confuse Bieber with Beaver. The demographic which gets really confused as to how to spell or pronounce Bieber's last name and instead pronounces it "Beaver" should, hopefully, be extremely small. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the link from this page. In a few days, we can check the page view stats for the Beaver page to verify that people are generally not confusing the two (I expect the view stats on the Beaver page to drop dramatically). — RockMFR 02:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to retain the cross-link on th Beaver page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unless someone thinks otherwise. I think it is probably reasonable that people are looking for the Bieber page and typing Beaver, since beaver is a normal English word. — RockMFR 04:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well to be fair, Justin Beaver is a LOAD cooler and much more manly than the girly Bieber, and I think that its fair to say that the link "Not to be confused with Justin Beaver" should stay because what if while a fan searching for Justin Beaver accidently visits the femine page of Bieber and momentarily gets the wrong idea.... what a scary thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brydustin (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone is a fan of Justin Beaver, I doubt they would make the mistake of misspelling his name "Bieber". Valce Talk 22:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

^^LOL Ok ok, I know its not professional and stuff but MAN did I laugh! Brydustin wins the internet. Super mario fan —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Media coverage

The fact that Selena Gomez is not mentioned on the article was discussed on NPR this morning (can't find specific web link)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

He's already in a relationship with Jesus, so maybe there's no room for Selena. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in [4] - does that (ironically) provide a reliable reference for the relationship now? ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's actually what I was referring to -- thanks for link... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet people are STILL calling Wikipedia unreliable. Super mario fan —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Place of birth in First Step 2 Forever

It seems Justin says it's Stratford in the Italian translation of the book, is it so in American edition?--Shivanarayana (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions

How tall is Justin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Selena

I think his dating selena is very important and belongs here. Why didnt you talk about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memercury3 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't a section on his possible paternity suit be placed in here? Manofmyth (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that any and all mention of his girlfriend Selena Gomez has been removed from this article and any mention of Bieber has been removed from the Gomez article is a serious problem that I'm going to escalate to either additional noticeboards or an RfC if it isn't cleared up on the talk pages. For the same discussion on the problem in the Gomez article, see Talk:Selena_Gomez#Bieber. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to bring it up at the BLP page where the paternity accusation was discussed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree! It's RIDICULOUS that THE BIGGEST celebrity couple right now isn't even mentioned on Wikipedia!! I mean, they've been dating for like a year! TaylorLane^{bore me} 22:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Biggest dating couple?! WHAT?!! People outside of America don't even know who this Bieber thing is! I would say Princess Kate is the biggest. I doubt Bieber is the biggest even in America. In addition relevant to topic, Wikipedia is not a journal depicting every event of his life. Its the ones most relevant. Wikipedia is not a teen magazine. Super mario fan

Erm.....Super mario fan, I don't think you quite understand Wikipedia matey. Selena Gomez is an internationally recognised film star, Bieber is an internationally recognised singer. If you don't think that belongs on Wikipedia then I suggest you move on. For the record I'm adding it, with references Cls14 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is still being debated? I already added information about his relationship with Selena to this article several months ago and it's been there ever since. See this sentence in the 2011 section: "On February 27, 2011, Bieber attended the 2011 Vanity Fair Oscar Party with American actress and singer Selena Gomez, confirming several months of media speculation about a romantic relationship between the pair." I will therefore be reverting your edit simply because it's duplicate content. Starswept (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Starswept

Androgynous image

This article comments on Bieber's androgynous image. According to WP:BLP, the material is presented responsibly, and I'm not giving it disproportionate space. Just a simple word. --CG 03:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You added androgynous image to the paragraph diff:

Bieber has been criticized for looking and sounding younger than his age, his teen-pop music, androgynous image<ref>{{cite news|last=Ewart|first=Paul|url=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/justin-bieber-is-androgynous-cover-star-and-is-pin-up/story-e6frewz0-1225990916249|publisher=Telegraph |date=Jan 19, 2011|accessdate=Febr 19, 2012 | location=London}}</ref>''

In the citation which you provided there is no mention of "criticism". So it is misleading to add it this way and against WP:BLP. It is also undue weight to add this to the Bieber article based on this single, short newspaper article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:JUSTIN BIEBER.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JUSTIN BIEBER.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:JUSTIN BIEBER.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well hurry up and delete it, bot. Nobody likes him!! Jaguar (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Trimming discussion

Consensus is moving against a merge at the moment. Merging was premature. The article clearly needs work. I have divided fixing issue into sections. Please discuss before removing. --20:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

2 Technology, marketing and the media

The 11 citations clearly need to be trimmed down. the total number of citations suggests though this area needs expansion. --20:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

4 Twitter mishaps and controversy

The celebrity death part is important to have as this is a recurring feature of the discussion of Bieber on twitter. It is a topic covered in numerous reliable sources, and is occassionally the topic of its own news articles. --LauraHale (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Charline Sheen information probably can go. --LauraHale (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Yeager situation is reliably sourced and has a huge amount of discussion. There are a number of sources not cited that mention fan abuse. This fan abuse is in many ways separate from what Bieber has done, but his fans are doing it to support him. --LauraHale (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

5 Cover art

Should probably be merged into Followers and fans. --LauraHale (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Duh. It wasn't merged. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Would be best to be honest and not misleading - nor imply someone is dumb.Moxy (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It was pointed out before, and I was being honest, but if I wanted to imply someone was dumb I'd probably go ahead and just say it. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Justin Bieber on Twitter be merged into Justin Bieber. I think that the content in the Justin Bieber on Twitter article can easily be explained in the context of Justin Bieber, and the Justin Bieber article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Justin Bieber on Twitterwill not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. The "on Twitter" article has a substantial amount of WP:OR than when removed will shrink it dramatically. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree; must be merged. Start gutting the OR. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What original research is there? Every fact is sourced to a newspaper source, in some cases multiple ones. The sources all support the text. --LauraHale (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Cut out the cruft and merge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What cruft have you identified in the article? If you've read the article, I think you'd come to a conclusion if it needed a merge, it would be into Twitter. --LauraHale (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tabloid fodder rather than cruft. "In April 2010, while travelling in New Zealand, he posted "... need to shoutout my New Zealand fans...I'm coming to see u guys next week!! I'm trying to play rugby with the All Blacks".[14] After hitting the 6 million Twitter follower total in November 2010, Bieber gave a shout out to his followers, saying "6 MILLION OF THE GREATEST FANS ON EARTH ON TWITTER!!!! THANK U" [19][19] When he passed the 11 million follower count, he tweeted "#11MillionBeliebers! I LOVE YOU ALL!! THANK YOU....tonight was already a fun great night and now it is even better. THANK U THANK U THANK U."" You believe this is encyclopedic? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Example: "Bieber, along with other celebrities, has been the subject of the false reports of his death on Twitter". That's not about his Twitter account. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a gem: "Most fans respond favorably when he retweets their messages." This is for the front page? Colonel, convince me that this is encyclopedic information. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Totally support merge, unnecessary to have a seperate article.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary based on what criteria? there are multiple sources that support independent notability of this topic, including a number that do not discuss Bieber at all but rather his fans on Twitter. I get Bieber is not a popular topic, but I'm not understanding the rationale. --LauraHale (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom, same subject. Cloudz679 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Totally support merge, completely unnecessary to have a separate article. If Bieber officially teamed up with Twitter for a specific event or partnership, then that might merit its own entry. As for it being well documented, well you could do that for anything. You could document every instance of Lady Gaga's nail colour and write a lengthy and beautifully sourced article on that, featuring photos and quotes. That wouldn't make it worthy of inclusion. Bieber on Twitter isn't a subject, it's just an aspect of his life. We might just as well have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_the_lavatory --Istara (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Article is not about Beiber but about Twitter. Article sources demonstrate independent notability of the topic. Topic here would give undue weight here as the topic is not about Bieber but about Bieber's fans and Twitter. --LauraHale (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is about Twitter and not Justin Bieber. I copy edited the article after it came to DYK and found no WP:OR. Article is fully and reliably sourced. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid criterion for merge. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Article is full of statistics about how many followers he has (unencyclopaedic, could be deleted) and information he has posted on the Twitter website. I don't know how you can contend that it is not about Bieber. In a nutshell, he has a twitter page, which is popular, and he is gaining more followers every day. The topic is notable, but the topic is Justin Bieber. Cloudz679 21:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not about Bieber, it is about his twitter account. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

that's about as dumb as it gets — "it's not about Bieber... it's about his [hair/eyes/ears/voice/toe/...]" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Many articles have statistics. This is not reason enough. These statistics are supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Major mile stones in total twitter followers receive independent, reliably sourced, signifigant news coverage. These numbers are repeatedly reported on. They are also a key component of notability. This is HIGHLY encyclopediac, and confirm why the article should not be merged: This follower counts are not about Justin Bieber, but rather about a Twitter account and 20 million people. --LauraHale (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

IDONTLIKEIT must be the oldest straw man in the arsenal. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I assume WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers to your merge support given the topics clear independent notability, the number of independent reliable sources, the huge popularity of the Twitter account and an inability to put this information into Justin Bieber with out creating WP:UNDUE? --LauraHale (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what you assume, and you assume so incorrectly. I managed to stick the relevant and encyclopedic information in the Bieber article pretty nicely and concisely, methinks. It's just that I like the idea of an encyclopedia better than I like your execution of what you think an encyclopedic article is--it has nothing to do with Bieber or Twitter. Are you now going to list every single tweet of his that's ever been mentioned? And every single Charlie Sheen tweet as well? I mean, why stop?

Also, I don't like this sloppy editing. One example out of many: you refer to this in a citation--what is that, a library holding? Cited in all-caps? As for "Followers and fans", that long list of scores, maybe you can make a standalone list article of that. Certainly it will be long enough before long if you include every single mention. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SIZERULE and related guidelines. Article is at the top end of recommended size, about 56k. Even if the Twitter article is cut in half, that will push the size up to around 70k. Further, his use of Twitter is a good natural break to split the article—especially since some readers will be very interested in the topic, and others won't be interested at all. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the sub-article is a significant topic in its own right, meeting notability 10 time over. It's bizarre, but not so different from Supporters of FC Barcelona, Kiss Army, Barmy Army and other pages under Category:Fan clubs and Category:Fandom. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge after a serious haircut. The many notices of "Bieber posted this" and "Bieber posted that" are extraneous and they reinforce what is clear to some here, that the article is not about some Twittery topic but about Bieber. At least some of the information is relevant to building an encyclopedia, I guess--in the proper place, which is his article. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What would you cut? Do you think "Bieber related traffic accounted for 3% of all twitter traffic" belongs in the Bieber article or in the Twitter article? Do you think his status as the second most followed person belongs in Bieber or Twitter? The amount of sources related to the topic are HUGE and NOTABLE, and even with a serious haircut, it would still be WP:UNDUE for Bieber's article. I can find 100+ independent sources that mention Bieber and Twitter in the title of a newspaper article alone. Can you draft a version of what you would put into Justin Bieber article so we have a better idea of how this merge would work and why you think the article does not INDEPENDENTLY meet WP:GNG? --LauraHale (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It might fit in both, but most appropriately in Bieber's article. I don't think what I have in mind is undue: trim all the individual tweets, trim what has nothing to do with the topic (such as Sheen), and trim a lot of the individual factoids. We don't need to list a month-by-month update of how many followers he has--that is not encyclopedic content. As for why I think etc.--Justin Bieber on Twitter is not a topic, just like Justin Bieber on MTV News isn't, or Hitler on the Internet, or Barack Obama in Basketball Arenas. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Then while awaiting consensus, WP:BEBOLD and put the text into the article so if the consensus is a merge, which I can't quite see happening, the information has been merged. It would be GREAT to see how this would be actually implemented. And if you're going for a Merge on Twitter, then stick the merge tag on the Twitter page and this one. --LauraHale (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an empty gesture. You think I'm going to be bold and condense this into one paragraph and merge while there's a merge discussion and a DYK discussion going on? Of course not. "It would be GREAT to see how this would be actually implemented"--really, it's not so great. It happens all the time in an encyclopedia, though perhaps not often enough in the field of sports and tweets. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Empty or not, I accepted it: thanks! I'll be a monkey's uncle if it stands for longer than a minute. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a monkey's uncle. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, monkeys are awesome. Arcandam (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Opposes as per above and WP:NOTDIARY - simply not notable enough for its size in here WP:Undue.Moxy (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support limited merger. Basically, I think this whole article violates a version of WP:NOTNEWS which is really WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE. Aren't we trying to compile an encylopedia here? This is magazine article trivia, not a subject for an encyclopedia except for a limited mention as part of the Bieber article. LadyofShalott 02:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The article is not about Justin Bieber. It is about Twitter. It is not about news. It is not about celebrity. It is about the impact of social media. It does not belong in the Justin Bieber article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Then put it in the Twitter article. Maybe that really is a better target for some of what's in both this and the Lady Gaga on Twitter article, but these are trivial items that do violate WP:NOTNEWS. They do not deserve stand-alone articles. LadyofShalott 02:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons stated by C.Fred above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per C. Fred and Vandenberg. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm horrified that this topic is getting coverage in WP:RS, but given that it is, I have to concede that it meets the threshold for independent notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per John Vandenberg. Bidgee (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Personally, the strange nature of this article -- how it is publishes primary sources -- coupled with the fact that there will undoubtedly be future creations of similar articles titled X on Twitter, where "X" are non-notable, made me lean strongly toward support. However, after having a look at the above comments, I think there should be a compromise. Maybe an article titled Celebrities on/and Twitter be created to provide coverage on why celebrities use Twitter. The article could then touch on some of the most-followed celebrities. Some of the sections above can be split and merged into various articles such as Justin Bieber, or Twitter, or, as for the case of "Cover art", into the Wikipedia article on upcoming album once its name is announced. Peace --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Both articles are over 50K and so WP:SIZE indicates that a split is desirable. Twitter is popular because readers don't want great walls of text which are too difficult to access and display on modern devices such as smartphones. Warden (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • But this whole article could and should be condensed into one paragraph. That's not a great wall of text. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, basically per User:Stuartyeates above; there is even research on the very topic of Bieber's Twitter account. That said, there is a fair bit of unencyclopaedic cruft in the Twitter article that can probably be given the heave-ho - unless an individual tweet caused death in a stampede of teenage female fans they should probably not be mentioned individually. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC).
  • "Some of the earliest Bieber related content on Twitter appeared in 2007. One example of this content was posted that year by a user named Scooter sharing a video of Ne-Yo's "So Sick" being sung by Bieber." Does that count as cruft? (It's not "Justin Bieber on Twitter"--at the most it's "Mentions of Justin Bieber on Twitter", an infinitely large article). Cut that sort of stuff, and cut Charlie Sheen tweeting his phone number (I still don't know what that's doing in this article), and what do you have left? Drmies (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I enjoy the non-standard-ness of it, think Wikipedia needs to stretch in these ways. ~~ MarkDilley —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

What, to increase and "stretch" the coverage of popular culture even further and to turn it into a fan blog for all in a "non standard" way. Even Laura Hale wouldn't agree with you that the article is "non standard". It is written perfectly well and sourced according to guidelines after all. Personally I think the detail is excessive and its best summarizing it in his main article. I don;t dispute that its notable to mention it, just I think its more suited to a paragraph in his article which is more to the point... But at least it is well written and sourced, we have a lot of cruft on wikipedia, in universe and unsourced rubbish. Anyway up for a Harold Bishop on Facebook article? He has his own appreciation page!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you pls hold off on the copy aand pastin .. as its not being done properly thus has many errors. I am willing to help.. we could try in a sandbox first and then propose the new text here first. Sorry I see all is ok - was not aware the editor is an old editor here. Sorry spoke to soon.Moxy (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You've been here three years and have never come across me???♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually six years and yes I have seen you before - did not notice it was you - was more concern about the copy and past job over who did it.

• Strongest possible-to-give support ever: Wow, we don't need articles about twitter accounts... Stupid to me. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Drmies has done a good job of trimming the flab, and as we can see, now there is not much left - "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It would be best dealt with at Celebrity use of Twitter (or something) with brief mentions here and the Twitter article. SmartSE (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, that's this version, with kind assistance from some capable editors. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Anything that kills off Justin Bieber, please!! (But also it should be merged because the Twitter article should belong in this article, given that both of these articles are about him). Jaguar (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Bieber on Twitter is a worthy subject in itself, due to the six hundred kinds of batshit fucking crazy coming from his fans there. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• 'Comment - It should be noted that some Twitter followings form their own real world communities. The same happened with Fiksimini. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support merger per nom. There is a lot of padding and trivia that is not needed. We need to look at the big picture. We have Justin Bieber on Twitter and Pen clicking for example but not article on, say, Air pollution in China (currently a redirect) or Mining in Canada. WP should cater to popular culture but not to the extent of being essentially a blog or tabloid. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Anything involving 20 million people is almost certain to attract widespread attention and therefore be notable. While I take your point about WP:OTHERSTUFF, the solution is not to strike down articles about technology and marketing, but to write more articles on ecology and mining. (There is an article on Mining in Australia.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Kelapstick should create Mining in Canada--that's probably a really notable topic. Hawkeye, 20 million people who clicked a button, that's about it. It's hardly involvement. So tell me: there is sourced content in the article to create Charlie Sheen on Twitter. At AfD, we regularly keep articles that have three or four reliable sources--Sheen should get much more than that. Another example: Barack Obama on Twitter. How about it? This from Google Books: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support merging I read the entire article -- I mean, half of the information is merely trivial information and/or irrelevant/unnecessary. To be frank, the article is about Justin Bieber -- clearly -- a section in the Justin Bieber article covering his "Twitter presence" would be more suitable. Not everything about his Twitter account needs to be noted. For example take a look at the Ashton Kutcher article, some information is about his "Twitter presence". To be honest, I didn't even know the article existed until I was notified by the main contributer! Here are some examples of the nonsense:
  • "Bieber is a self declared Twitter addict,[2] joining in March 2009, a month after his mother.[3]" - It might be useful to say when he joined, but the other information is just plain irrelevant.
  • "Also in April 2010, he thanked his followers for helping to make him a trending topic on Twitter.[23]" - Honestly who cares? I bet hundreds of celebrities or twitter users have done this, what makes this notable?
  • "While the movie Justin Bieber: Never Say Never had an IMDB score of 1.1 out of a possible 10, people still wrote 25,000 tweets about the movie. This compares to Inception, which earned an IMBD score of 8.9 and 167,000 tweets were made about it.[100]" What on earth does this have to do with Justin Bieber?
  • "Actor Charlie Sheen attempted to send a direct message to Bieber, but failed and inadvertently revealed Sheen's number to all Sheen's Twitter followers in December 2011.[105][106][107][108] As a result, Sheen needed to get a new number.[109] Sheen's tweet was named as one of the top ten Twitter faux pas of 2011 by The Daily Telegraph.[110]" - Same as above. This should be in the Charlie Sheen article.
  • "According to Dr. Jeffrey Gardere in an interview with FOX411.com, “These girls are obsessed with Justin. They probably think the girl is lying about being with him and trying to take advantage of him. They may believe that in many ways she is destroying the squeaky clean image that they love about him, so they are angry about it. Some may think there is the possibility he could have had relations, but feel that she may be trying to openly black mail him into being into some kind of a relationship and they are angry there idol is being squeezed, manipulated, embarrassed."[117]" - HTF does this pertain to his twitter account!?!? It's a doctor discussing the fans and Maria Yeeter.
  • "though at one point Britney Spears was more popular than him.[44]" - How is this relevant?
  • "In August 2010, his score was 99, with only Conan O'Brien and Lebron James having a score that high at the time. He was ahead of Ashton Kutcher who had a score of 97 and Sean Combs who had a score of 94.[55]" - Why is it so necessary to compare the score with other celebrities?
  • "A riot started in November 2009 related to Justin Bieber, which resulted in James A. Roppo, attached to Bieber's record company, being arrested because he failed to post an update to Twitter to keep the 3,000 Bieber fans who came to a mall informed that a Bieber appearance was canceled.[118]" - This is about a riot, not his Twitter account.

Those are just some examples. May I also point out that multiple users above have opposed the suggestion of a merge, citing the article's size/length. If the article gets some serious trimming, it would actually be more suitable to merge. Till I Go Home (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I was expecting some shitty article, but this article is incredibly well done. I see no reason for it to be in its own article. — Statυs (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Most of the information is trivial which can easily be removed. Concensus may be against merging but the article does need work. Till I Go Home (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• This. Justin Bieber on Twitter obviously needs work. It is a new article. All articles should be continually improved if editors are willing to do the work. The article should have enough guts to it at this point with 110+ sources that some one could conceivably take it to good if they wanted to. (Though obviously needs a lot of work between now and then.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Till I Go Home, this isn't a GA or FA nomination. Of course it needs some work. — Statυs (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Its commendable the effort you've put into it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is very well-sourced, and is about Twitter, so it shouldn't be merged. It's amusing to see such an article, and its unfortunate level of coverage in RS.Smallman12q (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support merger. --Bensin (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is a merger already done?

I see we have the merger done dispite there being an ongoing talk about the mater that seems to be leaning to no merger based on policy. So what to do? Should we talk about the new section that is just a copy and past of the other article now. I see alot of WP:Undue to twitter now - a whole section on a very small part of his life. I would propose a 2 sentance metion that links to main article.Moxy (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the merger isn't done since the article under discussion still exists independently: a condensed version was added to Bieber. That's not a bad decision anyway; typically, when there is a main article there is a very brief section, and compared to the (bloated) "main" article, the current section in Bieber is quite concise. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've boldly reverted the major rewrite done on Justin Bieber on Twitter as it looks like an attempt to figure out how to get a two article merge done for both articles, while ignoring the weight various sources give to Bieber related topics, not giving detailed information on Bieber Twitter account followers totals, most of which are covered by repeated use of reliable sources and demonstrate use of reliable sourcing. I'd also argue there is now WP:UNDUE weight to Twitter in the article because there are a large number of sources to Justin Bieber on YouTube but no comparable discussion in the article. Bieber also has 40 million FANS on Facebook. (He just isn't as active there and is not known for that.) This statistic, where he has the third most fans of ANYONE on the planet on Facebook isn't even mentioned in the article. The impact of Justin Bieber on twitter from a technology viewpoint in order to get something less undue has been removed, but that is a KEY aspect of the Justin Bieber on Twitter article. (And the consensus appears to be against a merge at the moment.) While at it, were the sections copied over by properly referencing which edit they came from since I doubt the person who wrote them put them into this article? Some one linked to a diff? It doesn't appear at the top of the page. --LauraHale (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I hasn't. But if there is to be this article anyway its customary to have a summary in the main article and a main article linked at the top of section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Its just a copy and past now - despite an ongoing talk about this topic. Yes as you both say a summary that gives it due weight - not the whole article simply pasted here. This may be normal in music articles to copy and past but its not the norm overall. People are concern its more about twitter then Bieber that has not changed - nor has its inclusion in this article or to what extent has been decided. So here we are now with 2 articles that mirror each-other. I see all was done in good faith - just done a bit fast.Moxy (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is Klout mentioned in Justin Bieber#Twitter? Klout is very important on Twitter, but including it here gives undue weight to Klout and the total volume of sources when compared to the total volume of reliable sources for historical Twitter counts, when he was setting milestones for this, was completely trimmed to nothing. --LauraHale (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This article

Main article: Justin Bieber on Twitter

As of April 2012, Bieber's Twitter account (@justinbieber) is the second most popular celebrity account behind that of Lady Gaga. By mid-April 2012, he had over 20 million followers. His follower acquisition is one new follower every other second. His popularity on Twitter at one point accounted for three percent of all Twitter related traffic, with a Twitter employee commenting that "racks of servers are dedicated" to Bieber. This resulted in over 180 million page views for the service each month. Bieber was frequently a trending topic on Twitter when the feature first launched because his fans frequently discussed him on the network. and was named the top trending star on Twitter in 2010; Klout gave his account a score of 100.

The size of Bieber's and Gaga's follower bases are cited as a reason why marketers should pay attention to Twitter: with an ability to reach millions of people with a single tweet. 8.3% of tweets mentioning "bieber" were semi-automated and probably Twitter related spam. Research done about Twitter and the 2011 Egyptian revolution includes Bieber as he made tweets about the topic at a time when he had roughly 8 million followers. His multiple tweets resulted in 32,000 responses each, which made Bieber's Twitter account one of the single largest nodes for discussion about the the uprising one of the largest on Twitter.

In March 2012, Bieber fans launched an unsuccessful attempt to unseat Lady Gaga as the most popular celebrity on Twitter. Neither Bieber nor Lady Gaga discussed their mutual fanbase's campaigns on Twitter.

The other article

As of April 2012, Bieber's Twitter account (@justinbieber) is the second most popular celebrity account behind that of Lady Gaga. By mid-April 2012, he had over 20 million followers. His follower acquisition is one new follower every two seconds. His popularity on Twitter at one point accounted for three percent of all Twitter related traffic, with a Twitter employee commenting that "racks of servers are dedicated" to Bieber. This resulted in over 180 million page views for the service each month. Bieber was frequently a trending topic on Twitter when the feature first launched because his fans frequently discussed him on the network. and was named the top trending star on Twitter in 2010; Klout gave his account a score of 100.

The size of Bieber's and Gaga's follower bases are cited as a reason why marketers should pay attention to Twitter: with an ability to reach millions of people with a single tweet. 8.3% of tweets mentioning "bieber" were semi-automated and probably Twitter related spam. Research done about Twitter and the 2011 Egyptian revolution includes Bieber as he made tweets about the topic at a time when he had roughly 8 million followers. His multiple tweets resulted in 32,000 responses each, which made Bieber's Twitter account one of the single largest nodes for discussion about the the uprising one of the largest on Twitter.

In March 2012, Bieber fans launched an unsuccessful attempt to unseat Lady Gaga as the most popular celebrity on Twitter. Neither Bieber nor Lady Gaga discussed their mutual fanbase's campaigns on Twitter.