Talk:Justin Bieber/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Justin Bieber. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Over sources
Think we need to go over the article and fix all the duplicate and triple refs. Not only is there multiple refs for the same statements but we have an article that will be full of dead links in a few months. We need real source here not this news stuff. Will try to find some real sources over the next few days. Any help would be great... as i am not familiar with this person ...but there must be real publications out there right? -- Moxy (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you're not referring to anything discussed in the last RfC regarding his legal issues. What's with this assertion that "news" are not "real sources"? What is wrong with having two or three sources for a statement? It proves that multiple reliable sources can source a possibly negative statement for a BLP. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- article that will be full of dead links in a few months -> the large majority of the article's references are websites anyway. I'm going to archive all the sources related to the last RfC to ease your concerns. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Every source discussed in the previous RfC has been archived using WebCite, solves your dead-link issue. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am taking about the article as a whole. At this point there must proper publications out there (Will look for some over the next few days). As for the recent RfC we have no need (as with the rest of the article) to have many sources all regurgitating the same info - does not help our readers in understanding more if they all say the same thing does it? In fact it may make readers believe there is a synthesis of info from the source thus making readers waste time again reading the same info over and over. In the ideal case we pick the sources with the most to say and are deemed the most reliable. We are here to our readers to learn about topics not convince them its notable by way of reference regurgitation. All that said since there archived the should stay till we have new sources over the next few months as info comes out on the ongoing stuff. As mentioned before I will search for books on this young man to clean up the sourcing on the rest of the article....may take a bit of time. -- Moxy (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well thank you very much Moxy for your current (and future) effort looking for books on Bieber. Anyway purely for the legal issues information, I think it's fine to have two or three sources. Because when there's something controversial or negative about Bieber, we've got people saying "BLP", "tabloids", "minor incidents" and we've had multiple people in the RfC saying "only include this point if you can find reliable sources". The multiple sources prove that Bieber has been covered widely in the mainstream press (and not only tabloids) regarding these issues.
- I think most of the legal issues stuff that has three sources can be trimmed to two. But I would oppose trimming all the way to one. I don't want (after the trimming) for somebody to say that "hey, there's not enough coverage in reliable sources for this point!" starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
petition
At this point, and recalling that the White House has no legal requirement to respond to petitions, it appears the White House has zero intention of responding to this one with any seriousness at all. Leaving it in is simply ephemeral trivia of no value in an encyclopedic sense, though it might belong in a "List of petitions to the US government" of some sort, were one to be written. It is not directly biographical about Bieber now. Collect (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your actions directly contradicted the last RfC where the closer said distinctly that there is NOT a consensus to NOT include.
- Look at the reliable sources. TIME: the White House is required to issue an official response.
- Reuters: passed the 100,000-signature mark needed to require a White House response
- CNN: surpassed the 100,000 signature threshold, meaning the White House must, by its own rules, issue a response.
- A more recent source: Petition becomes second-highest ever on White House website. The White House said it would respond to the Bieber petition, though it did not say when. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- closer clarification Not having a consensus for not including does not mean that there is a consensus for inclusion. Its an open issue that may be discussed further. While my gut agrees with Collect that surveys like this are "ephemeral trivia" I do not see a policy based reason for exclusion - it received wide coverage in very reliable sources. this is the type of thing that needs to be resolved via editorial consensus and discretion. I suggest NARROWLY defined discussions on inclusion an individual point, not trying to solve all 15 points at once. but that is just a suggestion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- To segue into Gaijin42's comments, I was under the impression that Gaijin in his/her closing of the RFC mentioned that episodes involving Bieber's friends should be excluded, yet they are still in the article. Also I don't see how the neighbours' reaction is still included. I think there should be more discussion to remove these from the article. I did not participate in the RFC or the subsequent discussion trusting that a resolution could be arrived at, since so many people were discussing these points. But it appears that very little progress has happened. To me at least, the section looks much the same as before the RFC. This can't be good, at least imo. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Gaijin42 clearly said that the "friends" comment was a personal opinion, not a supervote. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- To segue into Gaijin42's comments, I was under the impression that Gaijin in his/her closing of the RFC mentioned that episodes involving Bieber's friends should be excluded, yet they are still in the article. Also I don't see how the neighbours' reaction is still included. I think there should be more discussion to remove these from the article. I did not participate in the RFC or the subsequent discussion trusting that a resolution could be arrived at, since so many people were discussing these points. But it appears that very little progress has happened. To me at least, the section looks much the same as before the RFC. This can't be good, at least imo. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- closer clarification Not having a consensus for not including does not mean that there is a consensus for inclusion. Its an open issue that may be discussed further. While my gut agrees with Collect that surveys like this are "ephemeral trivia" I do not see a policy based reason for exclusion - it received wide coverage in very reliable sources. this is the type of thing that needs to be resolved via editorial consensus and discretion. I suggest NARROWLY defined discussions on inclusion an individual point, not trying to solve all 15 points at once. but that is just a suggestion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- A more recent source: Petition becomes second-highest ever on White House website. The White House said it would respond to the Bieber petition, though it did not say when. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: In a BLP, contentious claims require a positive consensus for inclusion, lack of a consensus for the petition fluff means it is eminently deletable. Starship must get a positive consensus to re-include the stuff as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree the same section has been added back even thought the closing comments suggest we remove some things about his friends and its clear the poll does not have support for inclusion by the majority. We will need to sit down a fix alot so the outcome of the RfC is fulfilled. Those of us familiar with bio issues should work together on this. -- Moxy (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- To help out in that process I removed some fluff starting with the bus incident; Bieber was not there when police came for inspection and even if he were I fail to see how anyone could control what comes into the bus. It is simply unfair to hold Bieber indirectly responsible for things found in his bus. Bieber is not a customs officer. He should not be expected to control what comes in the bus and we should not be reporting incidents that cannot be reliably attributed to his actions in the bus. In a similar vein, what Lil Za brings into his friends' homes has nothing to do with his friends. What was Bieber supposed to do when Lil Za came to his house for a visit? A body search on Lil Za? Let's get real here. Then we have the neighbours. Neighbours complain all the time. Nothing new here. Then we have the news that Bieber's actions quote "upset" authorities in some countries. So what? Most probably said authorities were already upset because Bieber was allowed in the country in the first place. And then what? Who cares if they were "upset". What is the encyclopedic value in that? How does the reader benefit by knowing that Bieber "upset" the authorities of some countries? I also removed the sentence R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber. What place does that have in Bieber's biography? Readers of this article expect to read about Bieber, not Khalil. I just can't believe the editorial judgement which allowed this fluff to creep into this article. Overall, this stuff is useless, uninformative news fodder. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Gaijin42:, if it's an "open issue that may be discussed further", why are Moxy, Collect and Dr.K. employing the policy of remove first, discuss later right after the RfC? This seems to me to be spitting in the face of all who have participated in the RfC given the outcome that clearly went against Moxy and Collect's views. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Dr.K.:, I find that what you're doing now is absolutely ridiculous. I even notified you of the RfC, you had the chance to state that this stuff is useless, uninformative news fodder in the RfC, but you did not. So right after the RfC ends, you decide to remove points 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. Of the eight editors who bothered to participate in the point by point discussion, only a maximum of two out of eight opposed points 2, 3, 4 and 5, meaning a whopping 75% supported inclusion. Point 7 was one of the most contentious, but it has since been trimmed. I don't get it, Bieber was arrested together with Khalil, you can't see why it's relevant? This is exactly why Bieber's friends are relevant, when they're being arrested and flouting the law. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- To help out in that process I removed some fluff starting with the bus incident; Bieber was not there when police came for inspection and even if he were I fail to see how anyone could control what comes into the bus. It is simply unfair to hold Bieber indirectly responsible for things found in his bus. Bieber is not a customs officer. He should not be expected to control what comes in the bus and we should not be reporting incidents that cannot be reliably attributed to his actions in the bus. In a similar vein, what Lil Za brings into his friends' homes has nothing to do with his friends. What was Bieber supposed to do when Lil Za came to his house for a visit? A body search on Lil Za? Let's get real here. Then we have the neighbours. Neighbours complain all the time. Nothing new here. Then we have the news that Bieber's actions quote "upset" authorities in some countries. So what? Most probably said authorities were already upset because Bieber was allowed in the country in the first place. And then what? Who cares if they were "upset". What is the encyclopedic value in that? How does the reader benefit by knowing that Bieber "upset" the authorities of some countries? I also removed the sentence R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber. What place does that have in Bieber's biography? Readers of this article expect to read about Bieber, not Khalil. I just can't believe the editorial judgement which allowed this fluff to creep into this article. Overall, this stuff is useless, uninformative news fodder. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is exactly why Bieber's friends are relevant, when they're being arrested and flouting the law Again, I remind you this is Bieber's biography not the one about his friends. If you can't understand that, there is little I can do to help you. Also please stop the personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric like you did above: This seems to me to be spitting in the face of all who have participated in the RfC. Your heavy-handed accusations will not deter me from expressing my opinion or act in what I consider the best way to improve the pedia. Also let someone else reply to my detailed comments above and stop badgering anyone who does not agree with you. Your made your views well known. I bet you are the most frequent commenter here judging from the high frequency of occurrence of your unmistakable signature profile on this page. Now let someone else reply in your stead. This is a community-based wiki after all. If your arguments have merit, someone else will defend them. By the way one of the reasons I avoided commenting in the previous RFC was the walls of text I was expecting from you at the time. I see now that you haven't stopped producing them. The reason I came back is that I want to help remove this silly trivia from the article because I believe it is useless fluff which discredits the editorial quality of Wikipedia. And please stop this relentless pinging. I have this page watchlisted and I don't need your annoying reminders. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
AN/I
User:Starship.paint has initiated a lengthy complaint at WP:AN/I about the removal of the petition from the BLP. Collect (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Spelling Error
On January 23, 2014, Bieber was arrested in Miami Beach, Florida, on suspicion of DUI, driving with an (over six month) expired licence and resisting arrest without violence.[138][139][140] Bieber was released on a $2,500 bond.[141] A toxicology report revealed that Bieber had THC (a component in marijuana) and the anti-anxiety medication Xanax in his system at the time of his arrest.[142][143] On January 29, Bieber surrendered to Toronto police, who charged him with assaulting a limousine driver in Toronto on December 30, 2013.[144][145][146]
Qewr4231 (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- What? HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Bieber is Canadian. Collect (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- And? HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- For those that seem lost - license (American English) or licence (British English, Canadian English). Perhaps we should add {{Canadian English}} to teh tlak page so people can see why things our spelt the way they are/ -- Moxy (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- And? HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Not an edit request, just a question regarding certain content
In 2013, Bieber was sued over "Somebody to Love". It along with many other things was removed in this edit whose summary pointed to an unspecified "request at BLPN". I know info on that suit would probably look better in the song's article, but it's not there either. I also know things can take a very long time in the legal world so it's not as if there's anything new on this lawsuit despite being filed last year. Still, is there any reason this is not mentioned in either article? (I would probably do it myself except I have to assume there is a reason it has been excluded wholesale, so I want to make sure I know where the community stands on this before I make a move.) LazyBastardGuy 21:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- AFAICT, it is a routine type of suit. Basically Copeland says his song had the same title (d'oh) and "time signature" which is not going to get much money. Especially since Queen used the same title years ago. And also Jefferson Airplane. And probably a host of others -- as a title it is pretty blah for copyright. Wikipedia does not generally cover every lawsuit filed against a notable person, to be sure. Collect (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some people just need somebody to shove. Just like anyone, they're looking for the green kind of black gold to put them out of their misery. Seems like I should be getting somewhere...oh yeah, all those songs are also in 4/4. Any other similiarity is purely coincidental. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- ...duly noted. Thank you. LazyBastardGuy 20:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some people just need somebody to shove. Just like anyone, they're looking for the green kind of black gold to put them out of their misery. Seems like I should be getting somewhere...oh yeah, all those songs are also in 4/4. Any other similiarity is purely coincidental. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW -- judge tosses suit. [1] Allen’s ruling says a reasonable juror couldn’t conclude that a member of the public would construe the songs’ aesthetic appeal as being similar. Collect (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Vocal range
In the beginning of Justin Bieber's music career, during his teenage years (like when he was 15 years old), he can sing high notes. As he was growing up, his voice matures. It has proven scientifically that the men's larynx, a.k.a. Adam's apple, generally deepens up the men's voice as a transition from puberty to adolescence to adulthood. For his vocal range, I think he has a tenor vocal range. What do you think about his vocal range? Sherlock502 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- You can debate on what you think his vocal range is, but if you want content to be actually added to the article, go out there and find a reliable source that backs you up! starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will find a reliable source that will back up my theory. You can count on it. Sherlock502 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you can find a source that explicitly says so, then Wikipedia:Be bold and add it to the article. You can always come back here to discuss if someone reverts you (but I don't see why they should if you can cite a reliable source). Good day. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can assure you that there are many reliable sources to choose from like CNN or ABC. I can only pick out sources that might come in handy just to support my hypothesis. Here are the few sources I pulled out:
- I will find a reliable source that will back up my theory. You can count on it. Sherlock502 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
2. www.theweek.com/article/index/250700/listen-to-justin-biebers-new-single-heartbreaker
3. www.examiner.com/article/justin-bieber-mania-what-makes-this-young-singer-so-hot
Let me know what you think. Sherlock502 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly the article's been locked for a month, so... erm, you might have to wait a month. We can still discuss the sources though. If after some time we've worked out the exact content to add and there is no dissent it might be possible to ask an admin to edit it into the article, but I'm not 100% sure that it will or even can happen. Source 1: CNN, is reliable, but doesn't support the claim at all. She was intrigued by the "tone and tenor" of what the young teen had to say - nope. Source 2 and 3 support the claim, but erm, the sources themselves, I'm not sure if they're reliable. I've never heard of the Week, but it seems like a news magazine so it might be passable. I have heard of Examiner but similarly I don't actually know if it is a reliable source. Other editors need to weigh in on the reliability of sources 2 and 3, meanwhile hopefully you can come up with even more sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm just kind of prowling right now but I noticed a source from Examiner. Examiner is not a reliable source. This thread I started recently to ask why does a better job of explaining it than I do (I had wanted to use an article from it only to realize I was basically resurrecting a dead horse long since turned into glue). LazyBastardGuy 20:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- The Examiner was not reliable because it used to be a content farm. It has since ('04-06) changed a lot. The global ban should probably be re-evaluated on Meta. But since it's still blocked, one could probably find an alternative source to that of the Examiner anyway. --CyberXRef☎ 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello there. I have spent my time finding the rest of the sources that I can think of to support my theory of Justin Bieber's tenor vocal range. Here are the sources:
- I'm just kind of prowling right now but I noticed a source from Examiner. Examiner is not a reliable source. This thread I started recently to ask why does a better job of explaining it than I do (I had wanted to use an article from it only to realize I was basically resurrecting a dead horse long since turned into glue). LazyBastardGuy 20:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly the article's been locked for a month, so... erm, you might have to wait a month. We can still discuss the sources though. If after some time we've worked out the exact content to add and there is no dissent it might be possible to ask an admin to edit it into the article, but I'm not 100% sure that it will or even can happen. Source 1: CNN, is reliable, but doesn't support the claim at all. She was intrigued by the "tone and tenor" of what the young teen had to say - nope. Source 2 and 3 support the claim, but erm, the sources themselves, I'm not sure if they're reliable. I've never heard of the Week, but it seems like a news magazine so it might be passable. I have heard of Examiner but similarly I don't actually know if it is a reliable source. Other editors need to weigh in on the reliability of sources 2 and 3, meanwhile hopefully you can come up with even more sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
1. www.billboard.com/articles/review/1071084/justin-bieber-one-time
2. www.nowtoronto.com/music/story.cfm?content=184559
3. http://rapfix.mtv.com/2011/08/28/justin-bieber-remixes-drake-trust-issues/
4. www.pluggedin.com/music/tracks/2012/justin-bieber-boyfriend.aspx
5. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2013/02/snl_sound-off_justin_bieber.php
6. www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/08/15/bieber_review.html
As always, let me know what do you think. Sherlock502 (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry @Sherlock502: to have missed your comment for so long. Source 1 is excellent. Source 2 is not acceptable, you have someone commenting he's going to have a tenor. I don't like Source 3 because it says Auto-Tune "rendered" his voice to a tenor. Source 4 is good. Source 5 is borderline because it says "blogs" in the web-link itself, which questions its reliability. Source 6 is great.
- Between source 1, 4 and 6, I'd say you have passed. Now it's time for you to propose what content would be added to the article based on the sources. The article will be unprotected in four days or so. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean proposing what content would be added to article based on the sources? Does it mean that I can add whatever sources that I have to the article? Sherlock502 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I mean, what is the content sentence you are going to insert into the article? Bieber's voice has since matured into that of a tenor vocal range? Such content must be supported by sources, namely 1, 4 and 6. How are you going to word it @Sherlock502:? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Stick to sources 1, 4, and 6 as part of the content. I don't know if that is the answer you want, but that's my final word. Sherlock502 (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused now @Sherlock502:. Apparently his tenor is pre-puberty, especially from what Source 4 says? In 2009 (in his early career) at the age of 15, Source 1 (Billboard) said it's tenor. In 2010 at the age of 16, Source 6 (Dispatch) says "Bieber's tenor voice, clearly facing an pubescent expiration date". In 2012, Source 4 (Plugged In) says "Instead of... his trademark high tenor", so the trademark must be referring to the previous years. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Because his voice, like I said about the men's larynx, changes throughout puberty, his teenage years, and career whereas his voice matures and deepens up when he grows up in later years. Sherlock502 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- If I am not mistaken, his voice as a tenor would slightly change in his early to mid 20s to early 30s. Sherlock502 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- From this day forth, as of tomorrow, I am proposing to use sources 1, 4, and 6, as well as an article from the Week (that is mention in earlier comments), to add as part of the content about his vocal range in the article. Sherlock502 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Sherlock502:, go ahead, article is unprotected. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for everything starship.paint (talk | ctrb). I will be seeing you again no doubt. Sherlock502 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Sherlock502:, go ahead, article is unprotected. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- From this day forth, as of tomorrow, I am proposing to use sources 1, 4, and 6, as well as an article from the Week (that is mention in earlier comments), to add as part of the content about his vocal range in the article. Sherlock502 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- This section has been deleted a few times...not sure why....sourcing problem? I agree 1, 4, and 6 are ok sources...what do others think here.--Moxy (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously as per above, I endorse the material. Seems like it's only getting deleted because there's no good section to insert it into the article? starship.paint "YES!" 13:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think the way it appears now is fine, there is no reason for it getting thrown into the end of the lead, that does not make one lick of sense per WP:LEAD. STATic message me! 14:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Its been removed again....we need people to engage on the talk page after they have been reverted especially if they have been reverted by multiple editors.-- Moxy (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed STATic, it doesn't belong in the lead, but why is it now a subsection in Public image? Makes no sense to me. I would shift it to the Life and career section. starship.paint "YES!" 07:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Its been removed again....we need people to engage on the talk page after they have been reverted especially if they have been reverted by multiple editors.-- Moxy (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think the way it appears now is fine, there is no reason for it getting thrown into the end of the lead, that does not make one lick of sense per WP:LEAD. STATic message me! 14:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously as per above, I endorse the material. Seems like it's only getting deleted because there's no good section to insert it into the article? starship.paint "YES!" 13:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
"Justin Bieber to be charged with vandalism in egging case"
Some information about this should be added to the article.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28237329
- http://time.com/2969942/justin-bieber-misdemeanor/
- http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/07/09/justin-bieber-to-be-charged-with-vandalism/12409103/
- http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/justin-bieber-charged-egg-throwing-case-article-1.1860323
- http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-justin-bieber-charged-egging-neighbor-home-20140709-story.html
- http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/09/showbiz/justin-bieber-vandalism/
Littlecarmen (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up Littlecarmen. Added to article, with BBC, LA Times and also Reuters as references. starship.paint ~ regal 03:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
DUI court case conclusion
Here we go again, Collect? This section is to discuss my addition and Collect's revert to the article here.
- Firstly, I'd like to address what Collect terms as
massive over-citation
, which is just three references for one paragraph. The Reuters reference does not cover the whole paragraph, which is why the other two references are needed. Reuters does not mention the name of the charity (Our Kids), or that the $50,000 donation (requested by prosecutors) was not legally binding and was done before the sentencing but the CNN reference does. Reuters also does not mention the $500 fine, but the Associated Press reference does. - Secondly, Collect removed some reliably sourced information which I felt was vital to telling the whole story. In January, Bieber was charged with 1) DUI 2) driving with expired license 3) resisting arrest w/o violence. In August, they dropped charges 1) due to the plea deal and 2) because he proved he did have a license. No idea why Collect removed this info. People are going to read and think, what happened to the initial charges? They are loose ends if you have it Collect's way. So, your move, Collect. starship.paint ~ regal 02:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
We are talking multiple refs for simple statements of fact, the use of a lengthy discussion about a minor event in Bieber's life, and the desire to give massive overweight thereto. Sticking to the facts is what Wikipedia does best, and adding material like "he was charged with having no license but he showed he did have a license" is of such trivial tabloid weight as to be offensive to WP:BLP. And using duplicating sources is "allowed" but silly. By the way, using article talk pages to make personal charges about other editors is against the guidelines, but this is usual for you, I fear. Collect (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is Bieber's BLP, not the place to "tie loose ends" or to add minute details of judicial incidents. I agree with Collect. Also I find that using a user's name six times in a posting is rather excessive and intrudes into personal territory. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is a content (and reference) dispute that arose from my addition and Collect's reversion. Please don't try to twist it a personal attack or personal charge or whatever. That in itself might be a personal charge, hmm?
We are talking multiple refs for simple statements of fact
-> have you understood my earlier post? Reuters does not cover every one of these simple statements of fact. Not Our Kids, not the $500 fine nor the non-legally binding nature of the donation, which Collect even alluded to during an edit summary. To remove 2/3 references for this paragraph goes against WP:V as there is now unsourced information in the article.adding material like "he was charged with having no license but he showed he did have a license" is of such trivial tabloid weight as to be offensive to WP:BLP
-> I assert that this is a prime example of sticking to the facts. He was originally charged with something during arrest. Later, two charges were dropped during sentencing. The reliable sources (not tabloids) tell us exactly why it happened. We should include it, or readers won't know what happened to the charges which we mentioned earlier in the article! Collect's reversion removed all mention of dropped charges during the sentencing, despite the reliable source coverage. starship.paint ~ regal 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- You note on your revert that "this has been discussed two days". I would note that under WP:BLP the onus is on you to gain consensus for this material, and thus it must be removed unless and until you obtain such a consensus. So far only one editor supports the "bold edit" and two clearly oppose that addition. This does not appear to be a "consensus" for repeated addition of the material in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I still agree with Collect and I also note that coverage by RS does not automatically necessitate inclusion of this material in a BLP. In fact, as I said before, insertion of minute details about Bieber's legal problems would be WP:UNDUE. This is Bieber's bio, not a minutely detailed account of the procedural details of his legal troubles. As far as This is a content (and reference) dispute that arose from my addition and Collect's reversion. Please don't try to twist it a personal attack or personal charge or whatever. In your original post, you mentioned Collect's name 6 (six) times. By any measure that's excessive (and annoying) and as I said before verges into personal territory by force of sheer repetition of his name. So, no twist on my part. Just the facts. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Number of times name mentioned? -> fact. Whether a personal charge? -> opinion. Anyway, WP:consensus is built through strength of arguments, not 2 > 1. Both of you have not even acknowledged the point about the need for multiple references for WP:V in this case bcause Reuters cannot cover the whole paragraph.
- Bieber's bio is both exactly and the only place to discuss his legal troubles. His legal troubles are a part of his biography. Here's an analogy. Imagine that an article states that 3 men (A, B, C) begin walking from Germany to France. The journey is not mentioned, but at the end, 2 men (B, D) arrive in France. It is never mentioned what happened to A or C during the journey, neither is it mentioned that D is the younger brother of A who replaced him during the journey. This is exactly what happens in the article. A, B, C are the initial charges during arrest. C (driving with expired license) vanishes with no explanation. A (DUI) was replaced by the lesser charge D (careless driving) is also not mentioned. This creates questions in readers' minds. He pleaded guilty to B and D, but what happened to charges A and C? Did he plead not guilty? Were the charges dropped? Why? Readers won't know, because the article won't tell you. starship.paint ~ regal 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:CONSENSUS and abide by it please. At this point you do not form a "majority of one" here, and it is clear that, absent a bunch of others weighing in, your position does not form a consensus here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Inviting more input
This discussion is to discuss this edit. Should the removed information be added back to the article ->
- Given that the Reuters source cannot adequately cover all the information in the paragraph of the DUI case conclusion ... per WP:VERIFY, should we also cite the available CNN and the Associated Press sources? (Reuters source, CNN source, the Associated Press source
- Given that the article does mention that Bieber was originally charged during arrest with DUI and driving with an expired license, and that the paragraph of the DUI case conclusion does not mention either of these charges ... should we mention that these two charges were dropped by the conclusion of the trial?
- Should we also explain why the charges were dropped, as according to the reliable sources? (produced a valid license + DUI dropped for lesser charges through plea bargain)
- I support both 1, 2 and 3. My arguments are in the above section. starship.paint ~ regal 09:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Regal, the information removed from the paragraph is properly sourced, but in my opinion it is either not relevant enough (which court) or can be implied, (he was not convicted for DUI because there was a plea bargain). I think less is more. To me, the current wording for the paragraph is more suited for an encyclopedia. As it is currently written, it seems properly sourced by the Reuters reference. The only problem I saw is that if it was read as it was previously worded "Before the sentencing, Bieber made a $50,000 contribution..." It could be interpreted that he took that decision freely out of regret or to gain sympathy, etc. but according to the cited source, it was part of the plea bargain. I took the liberty to correct it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Crystallizedcarbon: - if you say that the Reuters reference is adequate, I challenge you to find a mention of the $500 fine or Our Kids or the fact that while the $50,000 was part of the plea bargain, it was not legally binding and could not legally be part of the sentence meted out by the court, which was why it had to be done before the sentencing. The paragraph as it is now misleads readers into thinking that a charitable contribution could legally be part of a sentence meted out by the court. If you can't find any mention, it's because one source is not enough! starship.paint ~ regal 00:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think whether the contribution was part of the sentence or, as it was the case, could not be included in the sentence and had to be done before, is a technical detail. It was part of the plea bargain. How it was instrumented can be read by following the source's link. However, I do agree with you that the paragraph as it is written lacks sourcing. I think that the $500 fine is important and needs to stay and be sourced. Knowing the name of the charity, to me personally is not as important, but I see no harm in keeping it, so, if it is not removed, it should also be sourced. I would change the Reuters source for the Associated press source (the only one that includes details about the $500 fee) and add the CNN source (its the only one that mentions the name of the charity). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Crystallizedcarbon: OK. I'll make the changes soon. I'll like to reply to an earlier point you made. While the DUI was dropped as part of the plea bargain, there was one more charge - driving w/o expired license. It was dropped not because of the plea bargain, but because he proved he had a valid license. Therefore, Bieber was innocent of this charge, we don't even mention it? starship.paint ~ regal 04:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hello @Starship.paint:; In my opinion it is not relevant enough to be included. He did have a valid license; He just did not have it on him when he was stopped. It is the same case as if anybody else gets stopped by police, forgets their current license and are given some days to present it. It's much less notable than a DUI charge, and in my very personal opinion it's not worth including. What do you think?. Maybe other editors want to comment. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Crystallizedcarbon - I think you will find that interest in Bieber is apparently not that high among "serious editors", apart from some editors who seem to me to be quite protective of the article as a WP:BLP. About the license, I don't think we should consider it "by itself". It's a triple charge during his arrest, wouldn't make sense to go and remove the original charge during the arrest. It's not as if the reliable sources failed to report about this charge, they thought it was notable enough. starship.paint ~ regal 13:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: - To me, it's a balancing act between completeness and synthesis. As you know my personal view is that less is more. I do understand your point, my very personal view is that completeness of the information can be sacrificed in this case and that we can leave that less relevant detail out. I must confess that the level of interest that this article raises amongst wikipedians does not surprise me ;) . With this comment, I myself pass on the torch to other editors. But if you need my help with any article don't hesitate to contact me.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well said: Less is more. I agree. We don't have to convert this BLP into a detailed legal process whodunit. Thank you Crystallizedcarbon. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: - To me, it's a balancing act between completeness and synthesis. As you know my personal view is that less is more. I do understand your point, my very personal view is that completeness of the information can be sacrificed in this case and that we can leave that less relevant detail out. I must confess that the level of interest that this article raises amongst wikipedians does not surprise me ;) . With this comment, I myself pass on the torch to other editors. But if you need my help with any article don't hesitate to contact me.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Crystallizedcarbon - I think you will find that interest in Bieber is apparently not that high among "serious editors", apart from some editors who seem to me to be quite protective of the article as a WP:BLP. About the license, I don't think we should consider it "by itself". It's a triple charge during his arrest, wouldn't make sense to go and remove the original charge during the arrest. It's not as if the reliable sources failed to report about this charge, they thought it was notable enough. starship.paint ~ regal 13:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hello @Starship.paint:; In my opinion it is not relevant enough to be included. He did have a valid license; He just did not have it on him when he was stopped. It is the same case as if anybody else gets stopped by police, forgets their current license and are given some days to present it. It's much less notable than a DUI charge, and in my very personal opinion it's not worth including. What do you think?. Maybe other editors want to comment. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Crystallizedcarbon: OK. I'll make the changes soon. I'll like to reply to an earlier point you made. While the DUI was dropped as part of the plea bargain, there was one more charge - driving w/o expired license. It was dropped not because of the plea bargain, but because he proved he had a valid license. Therefore, Bieber was innocent of this charge, we don't even mention it? starship.paint ~ regal 04:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think whether the contribution was part of the sentence or, as it was the case, could not be included in the sentence and had to be done before, is a technical detail. It was part of the plea bargain. How it was instrumented can be read by following the source's link. However, I do agree with you that the paragraph as it is written lacks sourcing. I think that the $500 fine is important and needs to stay and be sourced. Knowing the name of the charity, to me personally is not as important, but I see no harm in keeping it, so, if it is not removed, it should also be sourced. I would change the Reuters source for the Associated press source (the only one that includes details about the $500 fee) and add the CNN source (its the only one that mentions the name of the charity). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Crystallizedcarbon: - if you say that the Reuters reference is adequate, I challenge you to find a mention of the $500 fine or Our Kids or the fact that while the $50,000 was part of the plea bargain, it was not legally binding and could not legally be part of the sentence meted out by the court, which was why it had to be done before the sentencing. The paragraph as it is now misleads readers into thinking that a charitable contribution could legally be part of a sentence meted out by the court. If you can't find any mention, it's because one source is not enough! starship.paint ~ regal 00:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Toronto assault
Let's discuss this apparently massive BOLD edit by me. Take at a look at the differences. In Collect's version, information about "8 September" is placed in a paragraph about his legal issues in January 2014. In my version, I moved the information about "8 September" to the paragraph about his legal issues in September 2014. I state that the original charge was in January 29 (this information was already present in the article before Collect's own BOLD edit on 9 September). I replace the words "limousine incident" with "incident with a limousine driver", because "limousine incident" sounds like a car accident and that doesn't go well with assault (assaulting a limousine??). Also, I restored one archived source from January 2014 (already present in the article before Collect's own BOLD edit on 9 September). And, I replaced the unfully formatted Guardian reference added by Collect with a CBC reference with archiveurl and full formatting. If you read the Guardian vs CBC, you'll see that the CBC reference is more detailed. Oh yes, I changed the MOSDATE -> "8 September" to September 8. starship.paint ~ regal 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Let's look at the absurd section which already devotes two sections to the egg incident, and where your proposed edit clearly implies that Bieber committed an assault - where the Reuters story does not even state that an assault was a matter of fact in Toronto. Cheers -- but this insistence on covering every "allegation" and "rumour" in duplicate in the BLP is an affront to every editor who has an understanding of what the policy exists. BTW, the "Guardian" is actually Reuters, one of the major wire services. And RS by most accounts. And your change of a date does NOT change the WP:BRD requirements - it is gnomework at best. Sorry if I offended Bieber by using UK/Canadian date usage - I had not known he was a US citizen at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- One of Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas, California accused Bieber of throwing eggs at his home on January 9, 2014 and causing thousands of dollars of damage.[102][145][146]
- On July 9, 2014, Bieber was charged with one misdemeanor count of vandalism in California for throwing eggs at his Calabasas neighbour's home in January.[146][154][155] Police earlier claimed that they had video footage of Bieber high-fiving friends after the eggs were thrown.[146][156] With Bieber pleading no contest to the charge, the Los Angeles County Superior Court sentenced him on July 9 to pay US$80,900 in restitution, serve two years' probation, complete twelve weeks of anger management and five days of community service in what the district attorney termed a negotiated settlement. Bieber had moved to Beverly Hills, California after the incident.[146][154][155]
- On January 23, 2014, Bieber was arrested in Miami Beach, Florida together with singer Khalil, on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI), driving with an over six month expired licence and resisting arrest without violence.[147][148][149] Police said that Bieber told authorities he had consumed alcohol, smoked marijuana and taken prescription drugs.[102] Bieber was released on a $2,500 bond.[150] A toxicology report revealed that Bieber had THC (a principal constituent of cannabis) and the anti-anxiety medication Xanax in his system at the time of his arrest.[151][152]
- On August 13, 2014, the January DUI case was settled with a plea bargain. Bieber pled guilty to resisting an officer without violence and a lesser charge of driving without due care and attention. Bieber was fined $500 and sentenced to attend both a 12-hour anger management course and a program that teaches about the impact of drunken driving on victims. Also as part of the plea bargain, Bieber made a $50,000 contribution to Our Kids, a local children's charity.[157][158]
- Anyone notice a pattern here about how we handle allegations about Bieber? Like covering minor events in duplicate? Collect (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hello? Let's not sidetrack ourselves here. If you want to debate the whole section we can do it after this point. Did you actually read my latest edit which I linked above as "this"? To help you, here it is again. Please compare "On 8 September, Toronto dropped an assault charge against Bieber stemming from a limousine incident in December 2013." [September Guardian/Reuters reference] to "On September 8, Toronto dropped an assault charge against Bieber originally brought up in January 29 for an incident with a limousine driver in December 2013." [January Reuters reference][September CBC reference] Honestly, I don't think you've even read my changes properly before reverting. starship.paint ~ regal 13:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Snark? I rather think the Reuters source uses UK/Canadian date formats - which I suppose is wrong as Bieber is an American citizen now? Cheers. I do not regard that as being a significant cavil since I was apparently ignorant of Bieber's citizenship. Collect (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you keep talking about the MOSDATE and ignoring all my other arguments? You're focusing on the most trivial issue here and zero acknowledgment of any of my other arguments. Anyway, all the other MOSDATES in the legal issues section are MDY. In fact, I'm skimming through the career section and the MOSDATES seems to be mdy as well. starship.paint ~ regal 14:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The big issue is the massive OVERWEIGHT given to minor events (dropped charges on the basis that the crime may not have even occurred is pretty clearly not something where we should in any way imply he "got off" at all -- yet the edit proposed does just that, and the other "stuff" which gets mentioned twice in a section is so absurdly past due weight as to be risible. ) As for the date bit -- I responded to your mention of it, which I suppose from your last post you did not intend to stress - but did? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- You know what, I don't care about the dates. The article is using mdy now. If you want to change it to dmy, go ahead, as long as the article's dates are standardized.. Please read the diff of my latest edit and edit summary. There is no semblance of POV pushing now. The (+500) is because I've changed one simple reference to two detailed, archived references.starship.paint ~ regal 14:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- The big issue is the massive OVERWEIGHT given to minor events (dropped charges on the basis that the crime may not have even occurred is pretty clearly not something where we should in any way imply he "got off" at all -- yet the edit proposed does just that, and the other "stuff" which gets mentioned twice in a section is so absurdly past due weight as to be risible. ) As for the date bit -- I responded to your mention of it, which I suppose from your last post you did not intend to stress - but did? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you keep talking about the MOSDATE and ignoring all my other arguments? You're focusing on the most trivial issue here and zero acknowledgment of any of my other arguments. Anyway, all the other MOSDATES in the legal issues section are MDY. In fact, I'm skimming through the career section and the MOSDATES seems to be mdy as well. starship.paint ~ regal 14:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Snark? I rather think the Reuters source uses UK/Canadian date formats - which I suppose is wrong as Bieber is an American citizen now? Cheers. I do not regard that as being a significant cavil since I was apparently ignorant of Bieber's citizenship. Collect (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
"Legal Issues" coverage query
[2] shows a substantial addition to the already over-long "Legal issues" section, and is primarily aimed at citing folks who say he is now a "bad boy". Is this addition which seems to be remarkably un-encyclopedic, properly here? Collect (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's two sentences, are you protesting against the five substantial references? One and a half of the two sentences (except the 2014's most annoying celebrity half-sentence which I added recently) have been in the article for months [3] [4] in the Public image section, as they should be. You made the bold edit to remove them hours ago. In spite of "bad boy" being his public image as per the WP:RS, you claim that [5] legal issues belong in one section or the other. I accommodated by moving them to the Legal issues section and you still protest. WP:UNENCYC? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I object to silly citation overkill where the apparent result is inclusion of quotes which would not pass the requirements of WP:BLP as being statements of objective fact in reliable sources. "Bad boy" is, as far as I can tell an "opinion" and not an "objective fact" but apparently your mileage varies about the definition of "fact" if you find "bad boy" to be "fact." And longevity of a sentence in a BLP is not presumptive proof that it is not a violation of WP:BLP -- many BLPs are veritable Petri dishes of rumour and allegation. Collect (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Bieber is a bad boy (opinion)
- Bieber has the public image of being a "bad boy" (fact, supported by RS)
- The article is saying the latter. The sentences do not violate BLP - see WP:WELLKNOWN. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 23:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I actually think with the new statements adding better sources like Mickey Huff (Media Freedom Foundation); Andy Lee Roth (Project Censored) (2014). Censored 2015: Inspiring We the People; The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2013- 2014. Seven Stories Press. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-60980-566-1. we could cut out alot of the old stuff from the section....since we have sources that cover the past in overview anyways. We have no need for sources that only cover one event now. Time to trim the fluff like the source above...time to consolidate. -- Moxy (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't own the book, and I can't read it online, it's (yet) unverifiable that it even has information on Bieber (unless you can show me how). Here are some free online sources detailing Bieber's entire 2014, instead of an immediate reaction article to an event. Ottawa Sun, (already in article), Global News, City News. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Lets forget the news link if we can and add real books on the overall topic.,,,since we have experts now tlaking about the matter. Can you see the book above here at the .com version (I can quote it if need be - that could be added to the source for all to see). There is also Karen Sternheimer ( University of Southern California) (2014). Celebrity Culture and the American Dream: Stardom and Social Mobility. Taylor & Francis. p. 333. ISBN 978-1-317-68967-6....can people see that? -- Moxy (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I can see the book cover, yes, but I can't read a single word of Censored 2015. I can read parts of Celebrity Culture, it mentions Bieber's speeding or racially insensitive remarks / numerous reports of speeding, drug use, promiscuity, and even videos where he tells racist jokes and sings about joining the Ku Klux Klan. I tried to archive the version I saw using archive.org here, perhaps you could do that with Censored 2015, Moxy? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Lets forget the news link if we can and add real books on the overall topic.,,,since we have experts now tlaking about the matter. Can you see the book above here at the .com version (I can quote it if need be - that could be added to the source for all to see). There is also Karen Sternheimer ( University of Southern California) (2014). Celebrity Culture and the American Dream: Stardom and Social Mobility. Taylor & Francis. p. 333. ISBN 978-1-317-68967-6....can people see that? -- Moxy (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can you see this hosted image? - attribution Mickey Huff, Andy Lee Roth, Censored 2015 p87. I also did the same for Celebrity Culture Karen Sternheime p. 333. We could trim the section of most fluff in the article and add quotes of these pages to our |quote parameter in the refs.-- Moxy (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hahaha, did you search for "Bad Boy Bieber" in Google Books to find these books? Yes, I can see both pictures, thank you, although I don't need to see the second. But surely that's not the end of the coverage of Bieber in Censored 2015? There's got to be more, methinks. If you would be so kind... (still recommend you try archive.org) starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- LOL I did search Bad Boy for the first book. But saw someone else use the Sternheime for another page a few days ago and read a bit of it and saw this. The archive.org page you linked for me I dont see..so I did the above to make sure all could see. Not much more is said about the "Bad boy"in Censored 2015 ...some passing mention of drunken antics getting news coverage but no specifics. -- Moxy (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Moxy: - my issues with the books -> firstly they are not Bieber biographies, but books on the media as a subject. secondly, on the coverage of the issues, Celebrity Culture - it was published on 20 November 2014. There might have been a few months of editing process, because the most recent Bieber incident it mentioned was the June 2014 racist comments. We have no idea if the July-November incidents were omitted if they were unimportant or if the authors were already done with the writing process by July. According to Barnes & Noble, Censored 2014 was published on 21 October 2014, the latest incident it mentioned in the timeline was the White House deportation petition which was held from January to April 2014 (but it hit 100,000 in January) starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- News links make articles look bad and unprofessional. Best to use them only when need be....no need to be so up-to-date we are not a news paper WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Better to get it right rather then link speculation. -- Moxy (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Moxy: - my issues with the books -> firstly they are not Bieber biographies, but books on the media as a subject. secondly, on the coverage of the issues, Celebrity Culture - it was published on 20 November 2014. There might have been a few months of editing process, because the most recent Bieber incident it mentioned was the June 2014 racist comments. We have no idea if the July-November incidents were omitted if they were unimportant or if the authors were already done with the writing process by July. According to Barnes & Noble, Censored 2014 was published on 21 October 2014, the latest incident it mentioned in the timeline was the White House deportation petition which was held from January to April 2014 (but it hit 100,000 in January) starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Not to be confused with Justin Beaver?
Is there any evidence that anyone has ever confused the guy featured in this article: http://www.uww.edu/news/videos/justin-beaver and Bieber?
I am a big fan of humour on Wikipedia talk pages but, if editors really want to extend this joke, I think that they should do this legitimately in a section such as Justin Bieber#Public image. As far as I can see the content has no place at the beginning of the article. GregKaye 16:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Change to infobox
I have reverted the change to the infobox as this version gives completely undue emphasis to his crimes. I do not think any mention of them should go in the infobox as Bieber's entire notability comes from his occupation as a musician. --NeilN talk to me 23:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE does not deal with verifiably sourced facts but minority viewpoints. He is very notorious as a musician who repeatedly assaults people and commits other crimes. Your reversion also deleted a recent guilty plea in a 2014 assault case and some validly sourced categories. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Not strictly, but WP:NPOV does require balance. It is unbalanced when his musical career gets about a third of the column space in the infobox that his criminal convictions do—it gives disproportional coverage (or undue weight, in all lowercase letters and common meaning) to the convictions. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest edits to the Personal life section
The JLanex (talk · contribs) account initially made this, this, this, this and this edit to the article. Instead of reverting all of those edits, I reverted a few, as seen here.
- I changed "Bieber identifies himself as a faithful adherent of Christianity and has said he communicates with God, via prayer, and that 'he's the reason I'm here'." to "Bieber identifies himself as a faithful adherent of Christianity, said he communicates with God via prayer, and that 'he's the reason I'm here'." because I saw no need to include "and has."
- I changed "Regarding sexuality, he told the music magazine, Rolling Stone, in 2010 that, 'I don't think you should have sex with anyone unless you love them.'" to "Regarding sexual abstinence, he told music magazine Rolling Stone, 'I don't think you should have sex with anyone unless you love them.'" because there was no need to alter "sexual abstinence" to "sexuality." And the "Rolling Stone" part flows better without the commas and use of "in 2010." It should simply be "music magazine Rolling Stone," not "the music magazine, Rolling Stone." Consider if we were stating that Bieber guest starred on The 100. It should be "Bieber guest starred on the television show The 100.", not "Bieber guest starred on the television show, The 100." The comma should not be there.
- I changed "He has had a temporary romantic relationship with the Latino-American actress and singer, Selena Gomez, in December 2010." to "In December 2010, he was in a relationship with Selena Gomez." because what is the need to state here in Bieber's article that Gomez is a Latino-American actress and singer? Or to describe the relationship as "a temporary romantic relationship"? The text also flows better with "In December 2010" coming first.
- I changed "His father, Jeremy Bieber, is characterized in a edition in the Rolling Stone that he 'split with Justin's mom when he was a toddler, and wasn't always around afterward. But he has, as of late, accepted a place of honor in his superstar son's entourage.'" to "Bieber's father, Jeremy Bieber, is a former carpenter and pro-am mixed martial artist. In March 2014, Rolling Stone characterized Jeremy as having 'split with Justin's mom when Justin was a toddler, and wasn't always around afterward. But he has, as of late, accepted a place of honor in his superstar son's entourage.'" because, well, my version flows better; it has no typos, is more grammatically correct with regard to "that he" part, and it restored the Rolling Stone source that JLanex removed; I also meant to change "Jeremy Bieber" to just "Jeremy." I don't care if the "former carpenter and pro-am mixed martial artist" part stays or goes.
JLanex brought this to my talk page, and I brought it here. Also, regarding JLanex's first edit to the article, many editors would disagree that new paragraphs should not begin with "Bieber" in that case. See, for example, this edit showing Melcous reverting WP:Sock February Jones (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
YouTube beginning/manager mention in the lead
Binksternet, regarding this edit, I'm sure that the reason that material was there is because of what WP:Lead states about summarizing the most significant aspects of the topic. That Bieber began on YouTube/gained a substantial following on YouTube before becoming famous is one of the most significant points. I'm not stating that all the manager material should have been there in the lead, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- The most important thing is to tell the reader in the first few sentences why the topic is important. We should say right off the bat how popular Bieber has been and how much music he has moved. The stuff about his being discovered is much less important, even if it satisfies WP:LEAD. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- The current lead is inadequate, but it was that way before your aforementioned edits to it, of course. I still feel that the YouTube aspect I mentioned (not all of what you reverted) should be in the lead, but I mostly leave the formatting of this article up to others. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Baby
Does the point about the song Baby being the "most disliked video on Youtube" belong in the lead? I would imagine that if relevant at all, it belongs on the page for Baby, not in the lead on this article. For the record, I checked Youtube and as of the last ten minutes, Baby has over 1.23 billion views there, with 3.5 million likes and 5.2 million dislikes. While the dislikes may outnumber the likes, with a total viewership of well over a billion, I don't see how either the like or dislike figure is representative of the songs popularity. In any event, I doubt that belongs in the lead, which is my main point. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed it. I don't think it belongs in the lead at all. Melonkelon (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Controversy, racist jokes
Should be added to the article, I think.
- Billboard - Justin Bieber Loses Again: How His Racist Jokes Will Impact His Career
- Time - Here’s Another Video of Justin Bieber Being Racist
Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Trivia at best, nor pertinent to any adult acts - thus not really encyclopedic here. Did you ever say any naughty things when you were 15? Really? Should it belong in this BLP? Nope. Collect (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Dispute: RIAA and occupations
There is a dispute on including RIAA and on what occupations should be included in the article. My thoughts - RIAA for "Baby": It can say "certified 12x Platinum", but not "12-million selling". The song definitely has not sold 12 million in the US, plus, that figure includes streaming. It selling 12 million would put it as the 2nd best selling single in the US, ahead of Elton John's "Candle in the Wind 1997", and probably place it above Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe", making it the best-selling digital single of all time. I doubt that. The streams on the song are over a billion on YouTube alone, so that 12x platinum is definitely pushed by streaming and makes sense.
Occupations: Actor - Really? He was "himself" almost all the time. Not really an "actor". Producer - Where has he produced? Maybe "Record producer", not producer, as he did produce Carly Rae Jepsen's Kiss and E•MO•TION. Dancer - Okay? All these pop singers use boy-bandesque dancing. We don't call Justin Timberlake a dancer for it. All in all, provide sources calling Bieber as such if you want those to be included. Pinging PhiladelphiaInjustice and Cornerstonepicker to stop disruption to the page and have them continue their dispute on the talk page. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. Bieber has been listed as a producer on all of his albums since he turned 18. Also, his 24 acting credits qualify him as an actor as per Wiki standards. The ironic fact is that I hate Bieber with a passion because he is an untalented, arrogant, convicted criminal. But I am trying to prove that I can edit impartially, even the article of the world's most disliked person (source: down votes on the "Baby" video, ha ha.) Apparently, there are some who cannot so they make excuses to diminish his accomplishments (I am not referring to you, Joseph.)--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- PhiladelphiaInjustice, Again, that would make him a record producer and not producer. A producer is someone who works on televsision shows and films. what "standard" is there for requirements to be considered an "actor"? Plus, in most cases, we have to find a source or something that refers to him as such. Every famous singer out there make appearances in television nowadays, we can't go around calling them actors. Take Taylor Swift. We can actually call her an actor cause she's had multiple appearances in films where she is not herself. We're closer to calling Carly Rae Jepsen an actor before we call Bieber an actor (considering her theatre work and her upcoming appearance in Grease Live. Bieber, this is not the case. Almost all of his "acting" credits weren't really acting, there was no character he had to be. I hate Bieber too, but there is no need to put any bias here. It's not an excuse to diminish accomplishments, it's editorial judgement. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- According to their respective Wiki articles, Bieber is listed as the first producer of the albums Believe, Purpose, Journals, and Believe Acoustic -- plus certain singles. Feel free to do further research because I sure as heck am not going to waste my time doing so. The Wiki standard that I was referring to that makes Bieber an actor is the same that makes certain television actors members of other professions despite minimal participation therein, such as TWD actors Danai Gurira and Emily Kenney. It seems that there is a higher standard when it comes to disliked slobs like Bieber, or maybe people are more lax with respect to beloved TV actors. Just out of curiosity, how does RIAA tabulate sales from Spotify and other streaming sites?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- PhiladelphiaInjustice Yes, but again, that doesn't make him a producer. It makes him a record producer. Record producer can go in occupations. Producers work on television and films. There is no "Wiki standard" on this - just cause other articles place it as such doesn't mean it can go here, because anyone can edit Wikipedia. "It seems that there is a higher standard when it comes to disliked slobs like Bieber, or maybe people are more lax with respect to beloved TV actors." I'm not trying to bring a bias into here. I do hate Bieber, but if I was going to downplay on his achievements, I would left the article alone. But I don't. If you mean by "minimal participation", you mean cameo appearances, those are different cases. Cameos, you are still acting (unless you appearing as yourself of course). Actors act, and Bieber rarely does that. Appearing as yourself, you're not really acting, there is no role he has to get into. He only has three acting credits as something other than himself. That's why we can call Drake Bell, Jared Leto, Justin Timberlake, and as I've said before Taylor Swift, actors as well as singers, because they've had many appearances that weren't themselves. The RIAA, takes 100 streams as a download for a single, but not for albums, whereas Billboard counts 1500 streams as a download for both singles and albums. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info about RIAA streaming, which I find fascinating. And I understood your points from your prior posts; you did not have to repeat them.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
12 million certified single
The general public is not aware at all certifications don't mean sales anymore. the 12x platinum for them = 12 million sales (more than almost every single ever released in the country). To avoid confussion it should be "RIAA 12-time platinum single, that sold 3,9M copies in the U.S.". Sounds kinda awkward btw. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Justin Bieber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100323190927/http://www.rianz.org.nz:80/rianz/chart.asp to http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Justin Bieber's certification sales
Attention please for all Bieber's wikipage editor. Please have a look at the List of best-selling music artists, Bieber now is one of the world's best-selling artists with 75 million records claim BUT his certification sales already reach nearly 78 million. Therefore, the 75m-claim for Bieber is too low for him. Please let me editing Bieber's claim sales to 100 million while we letting the source for 75m-claim still stand on his page because I want to encourage the media to release the more reliable claim sales for Bieber, so his position on that prestigious list will raised up. Need your help and attention please. Thank you Politsi (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Justin Bieber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130405034755/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin%20Bieber&format=SINGLE&go=Search&perPage=50 to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin%20Bieber&format=SINGLE&go=Search&perPage=50
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101194153/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin%20Bieber&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=50 to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin%20Bieber&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=50
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Justin Bieber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130405034755/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin%20Bieber&format=SINGLE&go=Search&perPage=50 to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin%20Bieber&format=SINGLE&go=Search&perPage=50
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101194153/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin%20Bieber&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=50 to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin%20Bieber&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=50
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Criticism of Justin Bieber
Justin Bieber is very widely and openly used as the butt of many jokes. It is quite a common running gag to describe how awful his music and his personality are. Should this be in the article? Hamsterlopithecus (talIk) 19:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it should. I've never seen such criticism (bordering on hatred) of a singer/celebrity in the past 30 years - and it seems to be worldwide. It's so vocal that there should be a sentence in the lead about it.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- What do you propose? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it should. I've never seen such criticism (bordering on hatred) of a singer/celebrity in the past 30 years - and it seems to be worldwide. It's so vocal that there should be a sentence in the lead about it.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Suggest: "Bieber has also received strong criticism for numerous incidents involving vehicle management and impulse control." or some such. This article is unbalanced. I'm trying to separate my subjective dislike for Bieber from his actual behavior. This young man has attained fame, wealth, and adulation at an early age. However, he has repeatedly behaved in a chuckleheaded and irresponsible manner in his offstage life. It would appear that he has no appreciation of his advantages. Sorry, I'm just damn mad. Lynxx2 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
100Million
Justin bieber has not sold 100 million records, why does no one fact check.. there is no other citations rather than billboard.Billboard and riaa reported michael jackson sold 1 billion ww but its not reliable .why double standard to different artist?? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Akhiljaxxn, what you are talking about? The source that you removed states, "His U.S. album and singles sales total $44.7 million with his estimated 100 million records sold making him one of the world’s best-selling music artists." So that piece wasn't added without a source. It should have been qualified with "U.S.," though, like the source. As for whether or not it's reliable, see WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure how reliable Media in Visalia, California/Visalia Times-Delta is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- To Akhiljaxxn, what you are talking about? ?. Please look at List of best-selling music artists, his total certification sales is very high (at 87 million). The Scotsman/http://www.scotsman.com/news/justin-bieber-in-meltdown-you-better-belieber-it-1-3281645 said he has sold 100m-records and Radio Canada International/http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/05/16/justin-bieber-live-in-canadian-homecoming/, cementing his status as one of the world’s best-selling music artists. OF COURSE, he has sold 100m-records. Politsi (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Time to update photo?
The photo of Bieber in the Infobox is 4 years old. He is 22 now, and there are multiple pictures showing him older in the Commons, and elsewhere. Is it time to update the pic? I've made errors in choosing pics before, so I will leave it up to the more experienced. But now may be the time. I believe the pictures of famous people should be updated periodically, when more recent pictures become available.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that'd be great: why don't you go to wherever he lives, take a picture of him, and upload it? It's not easy to get a picture of a famous person with no licence on it, we just have to make do.Esmost πк 00:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your response came across as a bit snarky, but I understand your point. I certainly have no photos of Bieber of my own to offer to the public domain. There is a more recent photo further down in the article (from 2015) Maybe I will be bold and make that the Infobox pic, but I'm going to think about it first.Juneau Mike (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Drafting an article
If anyone wants to help contribute to this draft I have created, I would appreciate it. I am trying to get it to featured list status so, be aware of anything you edit and make sure it is up to standard going forward. I mostly need help with music video descriptions. Thank you. Chase (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Breaking the link in "Bieber" to this article
I think that Bieber (disambiguation) should move back to Bieber while having Justin credited at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maestro 121 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Maybe it should move to "Justin D. Bieber" too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maestro 121 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Vocal range?
I was wondering if someone could add his vocal range before and after his voice break. I'd do it myself but I have no idea how vocal ranges work so I wouldn't really be able to describe what sources say about his range. Esmost πк 01:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Granted. Will soon work on it.--Maestro 121 (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bieber (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Recent removals
Shane Cyrus removed some pieces, and Cornerstonepicker and I took issue with some of the removals. Although I reverted all of Shane Cyrus's removals (and the intermediate edits by others), my main issues with Shane Cyrus's changes are the following: I don't like the "Life and career" setup when a Personal life section exists; this is because "personal life" is also the subject's life. The "Bieber's early fanbase developed on YouTube and predated the release of his first album" and "Belieber" material is not, as Shane Cyrus asserted, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bieber is famous largely because of YouTube, and his fanbase is notable enough that it is specifically talked about in WP:Reliable sources. And that includes his fanbase being called "Beliebers." These are things that should be mentioned in the article. Bieber's involvement with Selena Gomez is not trivial. She is a long-term romantic partner and should be mentioned in his Personal life section. So should something about Bieber's current relationship with his father; it doesn't need to be the exact quote I restored, but I don't think a person's relationship with their parent is really a trivial matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
With this edit, I re-removed some of what Shane Cyrus removed. With this edit, I tweaked the YouTube/Belieber content. And with this edit, I tweaked the dating content. Apparently, they didn't confirm their relationship until 2011, so maybe "2010" should be changed to "2011." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Followup edits here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
"Most successful single at the time" and " to commercial success"
Cornerstonepicker, regarding this edit you made, it's really not a subjective matter. We note what was a commercial success in the lead of our Wikipedia articles; films are just one example. When it comes to a biography article like this, we often state "commercial success" (well, if it's supported in the lead or lower in the article by a reliable source). It's the commercial successes that are usually notable enough for mention in the lead. Some articles use the word hit, but some editors, like SNUGGUMS, find "hit" to be too informal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I concur; "commercial success" really isn't a subjective term when there's adequate support (whether through high sales, high charting, or a combination of the two). Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Justin Bieber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin+Bieber&format=SINGLE&go=Search&perPage=50
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Justin+Bieber&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=50
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430201954/http://www.cria.ca/goldplat.php to http://www.cria.ca/goldplat.php
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/32714131/review/32735160/my_world_20
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-justin-bieber-toxicology-weed-drugs-rob-ford-20140130%2C0%2C3910534.story
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530064500/http://www.rivieratimes.com/index.php/provence-cote-dazur-article/items/nrj-music-awards-in-cannes-and-the-nominees-are.html to http://www.rivieratimes.com/index.php/provence-cote-dazur-article/items/nrj-music-awards-in-cannes-and-the-nominees-are.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Justin Bieber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622071423/http://style.mtv.com/2013/07/15/justin-bieber-the-key-fragrance-commercial-teaser/ to http://style.mtv.com/2013/07/15/justin-bieber-the-key-fragrance-commercial-teaser/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)