Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent deletions

Regarding these recent deletions by Hillbillyholiday, one thing that I think should be retained is the "Spears is known for her iconic performances and music videos" bit. If a number of sources have identified her performances and music videos as iconic, this is "Legacy" material. And it can be easily reworded if need be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Also note that Hillbillyholiday has not identified what WP:BLP violation he or she is talking about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A Legacy section. For Britney Spears. The mind boggles. She's not Jesus.
A lot of that iconic video stuff is mentioned elsewhere in the article. But we can agree on the insane overquoting and other extraneous fluff at least I hope?
The BLP violation was deliberately removed as a single edit it described, in Wikipedia's voice, Britney's "public meltdown" It's been restored several times as part of blanket reverts. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, we are not supposed to edit based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationales. Just because you don't think she should have a Legacy section does not mean that she shouldn't. Numerous reliable sources refer to Spears as a pop icon and note her impact on music. So, yes, she does have a legacy.
I don't view stating that Spears had a public meltdown as a WP:BLP violation; it is well-documented as a public meltdown. Furthermore, stating "was inspired [by] the singer's public meltdown" is specific while "was inspired by Spears" is vague. But I don't strongly object to this (your) wording.
I do object to removing material that "Spears is known for her iconic performances and music videos"...if the sources describe those matters in that way. Mentioning her performances in other sections is not the same as noting that they are iconic in the Legacy section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm questioning the need for a Legacy section, yes, but I did not remove it. Most of the material chopped from there is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. The vast majority of it was sourced to MTV. Is this an appropriate source when examining someone's "legacy"? To examine Britney's impact and "legacy" properly, one would surely require a decent source or two that deals exclusively with the matter, or something from a proper indepedent biography. Do we have those kind of secondary sources? Because that's what's needed -- cobbling together sections ad hoc with crappy sources amounts to synthesis and is essentially orignal research.
Perhaps you should ask at the BLP noticeboard if it's cool to say someone had a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This is what I mean about you being overly strict when it comes to sourcing. Spears is a musical artist, and MTV is one of the top reliable sources when it comes to sourcing musical content. So, yes, it is perfectly fine to have that material sourced to MTV in this article, including as far as her legacy goes. First, you belittle Spears and now you are asking for academic sources for the material...even though it's clear that you think she doesn't warrant such academic coverage?
As for using "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice, perhaps you would be interested in this RfC at the WP:NPOV talk page, where a number of editors are clear that we follow the sources with WP:Due weight and often do not need WP:In-text attribution. Furthermore, Spears has commented on the breakdown, or rather "the breakdown years"; she acknowledges it. She does not disagree that a meltdown/breakdown occurred at some point. So, no, given that and the sources that cover the matter, I can't view it as a WP:BLP violation. Either way, I've already noted that I'm not strongly opposed to your rewording on that bit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Belittling? It's all getting a bit ...
If Britney Spears has done enough to warrant a legacy section, and has had a real impact on culture, which I don't dispute, there will be good sources available. We should use them. MTV has a mutually beneficial relationship with Spears, it's in both their interests to amplify and exaggerate the importance of events. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Belittling? You did state, "A Legacy section. For Britney Spears. The mind boggles. She's not Jesus." You made it seem like such an artist should not have/does not deserve a Legacy section. As for other types of sources about Spears being available, that is no reason to remove WP:Reliable sources. And as for MTV having "a mutually beneficial relationship with Spears," we don't judge sources that way. Like WP:BIASED states, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." If the source was WP:Fringe, that would be another matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment needed?

In coming here from AN/I, I think what is needed, what should have occurred rather than all the silly edit-warring and other needless drama, might be a proper discussion here. I doubt that the article as it currently stands meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria parts 1a, 1b, 2b, 3b and possibly 4. Should we focus during the protection on discussing what needs to go, and what needs to be changed, for the article to keep its status? We could begin by discussing the prevalence of quotations; summary style is better. And any version including "reveal" generally isn't worth reverting to. Thoughts? --John (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Putting aside our difference for the time being, I do think that the article probably needs a reassessment. SNUGGUMS is an excellent editor on matters such as these, and might be willing to take a look. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
It'll take a while to look in full for all the needed comments, but I do agree the article is in subpar state from a glance. I'm also honored you feel that way about me :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, SNUGGUMS. And, c'mon, I've praised you before. You deserve the recognition. You are a bit more stern on some BLP matters than I am, and you might cut a line or paragraph more than I would cut it, but we balance each other out that way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. Like I said, reading through and noting all the issues that need to be fixed will take quite some time, but I do hope to give a comprehensive review. I've admittedly been meaning to do this for a while but never had the chance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The GAR has now formally been initiated at Talk:Britney Spears/GA1 per the above comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please update the photo of Britney

Can you please post an updated photo of Britney on her Wikipedia page. The photo that is currently on is old and outdated, it's 2017, not 2013. Thanks! 178.148.250.33 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Add to Spears's 'Education' University Of Nebraska, Lincoln

Hello,

I came across this video from about the late 90s to early 2000s that hows a girl asking Britney Spears how she became popular when she was a "high school drop" out. But she states that is not the case and how she was tutored through the University Of Nebraska (Lincoln)*.

Here is the link to the tweet. https://twitter.com/cassdolf/status/904929977430368257 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If including within the article body, then it would probably be best for the 1981–1997 or 1998–2000 sections, but even then tutoring someone isn't the same thing as them being a student there. That tweet is also from a fan account, and something more authoritative should be used instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Snuggums: True, I completely agree. I found a more reputable link. http://journalstar.com/news/local/high-school-at-unl-draws-eclectic-student-mix/article_9c040473-d6df-522d-960b-991bb50c8c1b.html We could use the tweet as a source because it is video evidence, but that is up for debate. Aviartm (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Much better. Since the page currently is fully protected due to edit warring, we'll have to wait for an admin to add this in an appropriate place. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Snuggums: You're welcome! Thank you Snuggums! :) Aviartm (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Britney Record Sales

Since it has been updated here with a verified source that Britney has already sold 150 million records, can we also update her placement in the List of best selling artists. She's still under 100 million records bracket there. Arturodumalaog (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 October 2017

Add

--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. I have lowered the protection. Please go ahead with your requested edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Britney Spears. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Replace Britney Spears Profile Picture

Replace her profile picture with a more current photo

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/gettyimages-597570330_master.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=684

or this

https://www.billboard.com/files/styles/article_main_image/public/media/Britney-Spears-mtv-vmas-04-billboard-white-carpet-2016-bb-1548.jpg

thanks

HugoKugo (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

We can only include pictures that are free of copyright per WP:Image use policy. I don't see any indication that those are free for public use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

octaves

hello

according to the figure in this link britny spears has 3 octaves(C#3- C#6) [[1]]

Original Doll

I feel like there should be some mention of Original Doll which was an album Britney recorded without the knowledge of her record label. She called and showed up to Kiss FM shoeless on December 31st 2004 and had them play what she said was the first single of her upcoming album. The single was Mona Lisa, and that her upcoming album was named Original Doll. She said the album was half done and it would be out summer or fall 2005 if not sooner. Right after the record label stated none of that was true and it wasn't being released. [1]

References

  1. ^ "Britney Spears' "Original Doll"". Uproxx. Retrieved 29 November 2016.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2018

Instruments: vocals, piano Venusbirth (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Influences duplication

Why are there two influences sections? One is in the artistry section & the other is in it's own section. Mobile mundo (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

Britney has sold over 150 million records. It was stated when she received Icon Award. Here's the source:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/britney-spears-radio-disney-music-awards-icon-award-991376 80.220.128.56 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Britney Spears total record sales

Hi,

I am asking that you edit Britney Spears's total record sales. Throughout her career, she has sold approximately over 200 million singles and albums. This should be reflected on her biography. I see that you have 150 million records displayed which is incorrect. Please advise. Below I have attached a link displaying her total record sales.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlD-Dmd5ans



Best Regards,

Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenpen123 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi

I believe the information about her total record sales is contentious at best and poorly sourced. The sentence "As of 2014, she has sold over 100 million records worldwide, making her one of the best-selling music artists of all time.[4] is sourced to an article that mentions the total record sales only as an item in a list of achievements, however, it provides neither the "as of 2014" part nor the inference that this makes her "one of the best-selling music artists of all time." On top of that the source of the 100 million figure in the source article itself is not included and given the main goal of the source article (to inform about Britney Spears receiving the Key to the Las Vegas Strip), it should not be used as a reliable source for information it mentions only to emphasize the exceptional star quality of the recipient. I suggest changing the figure to 150 million as proposed in the response to the previous comment in this section, including the updated date for this figure instead of the "as of 2014" and leaving out the "one of the best-selling music artists of all time" unless a respectable source can be provided. Thanks

Best regards

rradys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rradys (talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Time to change Britney picture

Hello, I think is time to change Britney picture at Wango Tango in her page. Britney always changes her looks (body, face and hair), and that pic was took 5 years ago. Her career has been into a lot of things the last few years (2 new albums, 1 resident, 1 tour in Asia and a new European leg). Is important to show her as how really is now. The new picture must be from 2016 (probably in the BMA's or VMA'S) , 2017 or 2018.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivolaric (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I also think it's time to change Britney's picture

The last person on the Editing Talk made also a request about changing Britney's main picture and I would like to insist on doing so. The picture is from 2012 and doesn't reflect the way Britney Spears looks in 2018. Some pages in other languages made the change (for instance the French one put a picture from 2016) and a change would be welcome for the English version of her wikipedia page. Can someone having access on the Edit section make the change.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablawoman (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I would suggest that you link to what you would consider to be a suitable alternative. I would not consider the 2016 one used in the French page to be particularly good. The microphone cuts off part of her face, she is doing a rather strange facial expression, and there is an aggressive amount of armpit. All of these things would prevent it from being an infobox image in my opinion. Also, I honestly do not believe that she has changed so dramatically to warrant a different infobox image on those grounds alone. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2018

Toxic is a popular song of hers 76.14.245.69 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK Discuss 01:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The POV and undue weight tags

SNUGGUMS, regarding this, I am aware of what you stated in 2017 at Talk:Britney Spears/GA1. But the POV and undue weight tags were added this year and are not explained/justified. Such tags, especially when unexplained, don't help. If you added them (I haven't yet checked), then I take it that you feel that you explained the tags in your GA reassessment. There should still have been recent a section on the talk page about how to fix those sections, even if the talk page section only consisted of pointing to your GA reassessment. What often happens in the case of such tags, especially when not explained, is editors cutting out material they personally don't like. What results is material that should remain per WP:Preserve being cut. It is not like it is clear to anyone what should be cut, especially when what should be cut is often personal opinion; this is why WP:Drive-by tagging is discouraged. Plus, one of the sections recently had an extensive cut. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I originally inserted them with these edits back in February linking to that page, and while things aren't as bad now, I still feel the "Legacy" section (which has since been renamed to "Influence", a bad name choice when it can easily be confused with the "influences" subsection of artistry) is rather bloated and the "Vocals" only has ONE sentence that's even remotely negative about her singing, which is a major problem when reviewers often criticize Britney for sounding processed and using auto-tune. Some fans long ago probably cherry-picked only positive comments to make her look better and created undue positive weight as a result. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Yeah, her voice has been significantly criticized; as you no doubt know, she's been compared to Christina Aguilera enough on that front because they were often seen as rivals. Aguilera was always stated to have the much better voice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2018

Thurako.26 (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gulumeemee (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

It says S&M is one of Britney's 5 number one singles. Either say she has 4 or figure out what the 5th is. Because S&M is by Rihanna not Britney. Ugh. Get your facts straight. The gays disapprove of you smh Jesseshim (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

The hashtag #FreeBritney started to trend on the social media website Twitter when rumors of Spears being held against her will in the mental health facility were sparked by a podcast called "Britney's Gram". The podcast alleges Spears' father checked her into the facility against her will because she refused to take her medication for bipolar disorder. Neither Spears nor her family have made an official statement confirming or denying the rumors. Jmr1212 (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

64.85.225.94 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

Since Britney Spears has bipolar disorder, this article should be in the under "People with bipolar disorder" under Categories. 64.85.225.94 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no mention of this in the article. Please provide published, reliable sources to support this claim. See also WP:BLP. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources --> https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a19984256/britney-spears-mental-health/ https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/britney-spears-opens-up-on-bipolar-disorder-i-turn-into-a-different-person-29861547.html

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Under Where it says "Hiatus" could you please put that a current hashtag is going around twitter that says #FreeBritney? Could you please put that this hashtag comes from concerns from fans who claim that britney is being held in the mental institution against her will? Jmr1212 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the hashtag is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards, but I've added referenced info about the April 22 protest outside the West Hollywood City Hall. I will update the article if there is more. I am concerned about this as a member of WikiProject Human Rights.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Gabiarakelian has removed it, but given the Instagram video that she posted, I now agree it was undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
User:OnMyRadar: You've restored it. I think the protest is factual and notable but potentially undue. Please share your views here.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I've updated it--she's left the facility. I think the passage could be trimmed.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019

Britney Spears' lead image was changed, but it is not the best picture of her. I think previous image is better.

190.160.21.173 (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 21:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Britney Spears' Wikipedia Page Picture

We should use a more recent picture of her instead of using the 2013 picture of her which was heavily edited to the fact that it does not even look like her anymore. I hope the photographer can stop reverting it back to that picture just because he owns the right to the pic. Every celebrity has at least a 2015 picture of them being used but Spears' picture is from 2013. The current picture of her performing at the Apple Music Festival 2016 should be used as it is not heavily edited and is more recent. Thank you.

--Alienatedney (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The Apple Music Festival picture is not a good main picture because it doesn't capture her face clearly, her mic is covering her mouth as well. --Rhodes00 (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The 2013 --Alienatedney (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)picture does not resemble her current self and most singers pic (eg: Christina Aguilera) has mic covering parts of their faces as well. Also, the picture is more recent and resembles her current appearance. --Alienatedney (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I Reverted user: Alienatedney’s persistent vandalism of Britney Spears main Photo. (Britney Spears 2013 (Straighten Crop).jpg). It appears he has some kind of nefarious agenda. He falsely states that I keep reverting the picture back, when in fact I never have until he removed it yesterday. If that photo had ever been replaced during its time, it was placed back again by competent and qualified editors. User: Alienatedney’s delusions and false accusations are exactly that. FYI Britney herself said she loves that photo.

It appears that User: Alienatedney is the disruptive editor who keeps vandalizing and replacing Britneys 2013 photo with inferior ones. Although it is not my style to criticize the work of other photographers, it is simply a fact that the 2013 photo of Britney is exactly the type of photo Wikipedia prefers – a pleasing close-up quality “portrait” style photo with the subject looking directly at the camera – NOT the type of photos that Alienatedney keeps replacing it with.

To User:Alienatedney: Please do not replace the “Britney Spears 2013” photo again, do not edit war, and stop writing your delusional nonsense on my Talk pages. The decision as to which photo to use as Britney’s main should be decided by competent knowledgable editors – not you. Glenn Francis (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

To User:Toglenn: The only delusional person here is you that would not allow other pictures of her to be used even if it was changed multiple times by other users as well. The picture that has been used has been obsolete and needs to be updated. The 2013 picture does not even look like Spears. --Alienatedney (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

To User:Toglenn: I agree with User:Aliyenatedne, the 2013 picture of Spears does not portray Spears’ current self at all and is seem to have been heavily edited as well (making it to be unflattering) while the Apple Music Festival photo is unedited and is more flattering. Not every celebrity’s main picture has to be pictures taken by you. And FYI, claiming Spears love that photo does not mean it should be used. It can be clearly seen here that the only reason you want to use that photo of Spears is because it was taken by you, which is clearly a conflict of interest. --DashRob (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The thing is: this particular Apple Music Festival picture is not a good choice for main picture! You can't see her face clearly, her facial expression looks a bit weird and her mouth is almost completely covered by the mic. It is just not good. The 2013 pic may be a little outdated, but for now it's the best thing we have. If you want to replace it, at least submit more recent pictures here in the talk page and we can hopefully choose the better one. --Rhodes00 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

DashRob's appearance was a bit too much of a coincidence. That account has been blocked indefinitely and Alienatedney for a week. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU Favonian. Yeah, the words written by DashRob are extremely similar to those of Alienatedney and nearly identical to those written on my talk pages by User:Alienatedney. I see DashRob has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:Alienatedney and blocked indefinitely.

The "flashing" campaign begun in November 2006

It is dishonest not to mention the "flashing" campaign Spears began in November 2006, shocking much of the public. It was commented upon in the major broadcast media at the time, starting with articles such as these:

Google Trends analysis reveals that since 2004, the greatest interest in Spears was shown around this time, with the number of searches for "Britney Spear" + "vagina" numbering 4% as many as those for "Britney Spears" alone.

While many people in entertainment had previously invited riske photographs of themselves in public to be captured, never before had a top-tier star like Britney Spears undertaken such extreme measures to resurrect a fading career, creating widepread astonishment in the general society, and marking a watershed in US public decorum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.62.185 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Britney Spears version

There has been some editing regarding this, but the Spears' version only reached number when when combined with sales figures for Rihanna's original. That doesn't make it a number one for her specifically, and indeed the S&M (song) states this as well: "When combined with sales of the solo version, it became Rihanna's tenth and Spears' fifth number-one single".

This edit summary is probably pushing the boundaries as well, but let's put it down to over-enthusiastic fandom. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Expensive perfume

Re. ‘Spears sold over one million bottles in the first five years, with gross receipts of $1.5 billion.’ Is there any support for this statement ? This would seem to be needed, not least as it suggest the stuff costs around 1,500 USD per bottle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:25B9:C7B4:284B:82E6 (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

Please use an updated photo 2601:243:C502:32C0:D588:14BD:D7A8:C853 (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are requests for specific, precise edits, not pleas for general article improvements. If you have a specific photo in mind, feel free to suggest it, but it must be free to use (ie, don't just provide a link to a copyrighted photo). You can look on Commons to see if any are available. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Britney's photo

The photo at the top of this article is one from 2013. Since then, a lot has changed about Britney's face; she now looks much different than she did that year, meaning the current photo is outdated. I think it should be updated with one from this year. I'd say that her red carpet appearance at the premiere of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. The photo at the top of this Billboard article would be pretty good if cropped, although another one could be used. --EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That particular image is under copyright and can't be used. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case, then alright, we don't have to use specifically that one. Do you know if all photos from that event are copyrighted? EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Britney's photo

How can I tell which photo online is for public use and which is not? Would an instagram picture of hers be considered for public use?Mohsen6000 (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Only if the website says the images are licensed for public use, and that license is compatible with Wikipedia's requirements. As the introduction to uploading files says "Wikipedia does not generally accept images found on the Internet, as the vast majority of them are not freely licensed." Meters (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2020

I request to make an edit to the Britney Spears Wikipedia page, Due to the fact that on the years active column her career spans from 1999-2018 when it should tell us that she is now on hiatus and should look something like this 1999-2019 (hiatus) 46.7.62.42 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

Jeffree Star, Shane Dawson and Trisha Paytas do not qualify as "celebrities" and should not be listed in the article where they are noted as "celebrities" who supported Britney during the #FreeBritney movement. Cloudgirl87 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Or otherwise, provide a reliable source. Thank you. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Britney's photo

Hi I strongly believe that Britney's image needs to be changed. If I purchase an image from Gettyimages, would that give me the permission to use it? Mohsen6000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mohsen6000: No. See WP:IUP for more innformation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent expansions

Thelonggoneblues and others, be mindful of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We don't need to include every little thing about Spears in the article. Wikipedia is more so about summarizing these things, which is why our WP:Summary style guideline exists.

No need to ping me if you reply. This article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a more current picture of Britney Spears.

https://tribunecontentagency.com/article/britney-spears-doesnt-want-her-father-to-be-her-sole-conservator/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A700:A7E:F5B0:1C43:F9D9:2607 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

We can post specific Creative Commons pictures-only. That picture says "© 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." © Tbhotch™ 20:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Conservatorship dispute section - impartiality vs NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content

First of all, I very much appreciate KyleJoantalk's recent summarisation of #FreeBritney-related news sources, the clarity on reverting my edits over their summary and any other input in helping summarise the current, ongoing lengthy legal battle. I have no wish to rectify this or expand on this.

Spears' 18-month news span relating to her conservatorship malpractice case is an important feature and integral to her history as a public figure, that can't be disputed. I support the notability of highlighting a grassroots movement that advocates for disability rights, but I also support impartiality on the manner, such as biases as per WP:NPOV, which the user noted helped amplify. Those who revert and change based on what they perceive as a NPOV can be deceptive however, intentional or not. Which leads me to a conversation regarding Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.

A few things to note;

  1. Spears' voice being censored is not new. Regardless of personal feelings on how disturbing or protective the conservatorship is for people with varying opinions, all interviews post-conservatorship are pre-recorded with questions needing to be sent to her team for approval. It is common in celebrity culture for this to happen, but in this case, it is the only way she is allowed to speak publicly. She often speaks with one sentence answers in public appearances. If anything she says gives exposure to the conservatorship or her father, it is edited out.
  2. An example of this includes the Jonathan Ross 2016 Glory interview. This and this highlight this years ago, but now the most recent court report show via her court-appointed lawyer that Jamie uses excuses to seal court documents relating to the conservatorship. The May 2019 hearing was never leaked, but sources say Spears said she was held against her will and that she wanted to have a child. These sources were removed from the Wikipedia.
  3. Lou Taylor, Spears' business manager / accountant responsible for setting up the conservatorship is a key aspect to this dispute, with her trying to sue a fan for allegedly defaming her until she dismissed the case, after she was asked to give evidence. Her attempting to take over other women's estates, who have had legal trouble, such as Lindsay Lohan in 2010 and Courtney Love via Instagram is notable. She is mentioned in Lynne's book as well in the plot to set up the conservatorship.
  4. Reporting that Spears' conservatorship is extended somehow, in any regard, is inaccurate. The conservatorship was filed to be made permanent in 2009. The media buzz regarding extension refers to the investigation. And there has always been regular check-ups on finances related to it, as all of Spears' spendings have been public since 2008.

While I understand that Spears's representative, Jeff Raymond, said Jamie had a colon rupture, the notion that Jamie's colon rupture being the reason for the Domination Las Vegas Residency cancellation can be mass media manipulation easily. All news sources related to the fallout of Domination's residency heavily focused on Spears' 'repaired' relationship with her father such as this one, and while Spears' caption on Instagram used this excuse, it was also her last social media post for 4 months and there is very little known about her control or lack thereof under the restrictive nature of her life.

Spears is under a probate conservatorship, meaning as if she was deceased or on life support. The concept of what is voluntary here is up for question. The very fact that initial media outlets, which responded to TMZ as an exclusive source saying Spears 'checked herself in' from this is questionable within itself. Would it not make more sense, from an impartial sense, to say 'Britney Spears granted approval by conservatorship to be checked into mental health facility', if we are to believe there is personal autonomy in this regard? On top of this, her difficult relationship with her father is notable. While it is entirely possible to be stressed over a complicated-relationship father with a health issue, given the abuse allegations, recent official court report of Spears' own lawyer being critical of Jamie's own secretive nature, other censorship issues of Spears being critical of her father and now a full-fledged dispute of Spears wanting her father to step down as conservator of both her personhood and estate, it is safe to say their relationship is strained, it is a necessary assumption as per WP; NPOV.

I do not think it is appropriate to trust a TMZ source suggesting Spears voluntarily entered the mental health facility in March of 2019, given the discretion of what instigated the worldwide media attention that followed, regardless of how people feel about the credibility of it. Wallet had a documented emergency resignation in March 2019. Britney's Gram alleges Wallet resigned out of fear of backlash from the disturbing radical approach to Britney's non-compliance. This is non-neutral reporting, but it is important, as Ingham is critical of Wallet being requested to return for co-conservator due to being 'semi-retired' according to him. So again, non-neutrality is what propelled the malpractice investigation from public outrage.

So I suggest the best way to rectify this issue overall is to say Spears merely entered a treatment facility, reportedly in March 2019. Then, it was later alleged this was not the case, leading to the movement. I don't intend to expand on the section much further beyond that. 03:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC) --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

TMZ is not cited anywhere in the section. The article cites Variety to support the information about Spears checking herself into a treatment facility. The Hollywood Reporter also verifies as much. With both being reliable sources, it is irrelevant whether they were responding to TMZ. Would it not make more sense, from an impartial sense, to say 'Britney Spears granted approval by conservatorship to be checked into mental health facility', if we are to believe there is personal autonomy in this regard? No, because neither source states this. That would violate WP:SYNTH (i.e., Spears is under a conservatorship + Spears checked into a facility = Spears checked into a facility with permission from the conservatorship).
There's no way to overstate how improper it would be to highlight Spears' voice being censored based on one's own conclusion following watching some of her interviews. Stick to the sources. The sources state that she announced the cancelation of the planned residency due to her father's health and that a podcast alleged that that was not the case; the former cannot be qualified more than the latter because it would violate WP:DUE. That aside, none of the sources highlights Lou Taylor's name as uniquely meaningful, so to reference him based on unproven sources or social media posts would violate DUE as well. Also, what malpractice investigation? I understand Spears's fans have accused the conservatorship of malpractice, but which reliable source has reported that such an investigation exists?
And finally, every detail in the section is reported, so it would be inappropriate to label Spears entering the facility herself as something that reportedly happened because it would give undue weight to the allegations that contradict said occurrence. The only way to rectify this issue would be to state that Spears reportedly entered the facility in March and that the podcast reportedly alleged that she had been held against her will. Either the whole section reads, "Spears reportedly X", "Jamie Spears reportedly X", "Kevin Federline reportedly X", or we state everything in a matter-of-fact manner. I prefer the latter. KyleJoantalk 04:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
KyleJoantalk, the original source that stated Spears checked herself into a mental health facility voluntarily came exclusive to TMZ, it is noted in the original TMZ article, then other 'reliable' sources, as per Wikipedia's terms, checked from TMZ and they ran with the story. TMZ has posted multiple conflicting accounts since, such as her receiving medication for bipolar disorder despite not being diagnosed, an article which was since deleted. This was notified in Wikipedia to highlight this, until this information was removed. And there is an official malpractice investigation ongoing. The investigation began in May 2019 as per this It was also highly documented last August/September when Spears' psychiatrist died before he was supposed to go to court to say whether the medication he gave to her was appropriate. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
What is your evidence that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter checked from TMZ and [...] ran with the story as opposed to independently verifying it? You cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that TMZ had posted multiple conflicting accounts per your own findings; original research does not belong here. As I've said before, the section does not cite TMZ to support any information, so let's keep it that way. I also find it curious that you criticize TMZ's reporting but trust The Blast's; are the two not similar in their respective reputations for publishing rumors and speculation? The Blast was created by the co-founder of TMZ, you know? You also never provided a reliable source stating that a malpractice investigation exists or existed. In relation, the only reliable source covering her psychiatrist's death as something uniquely and meaningfully related to her conservatorship that I could find was New York Daily News, therefore, it is unclear whether the information constitutes due weight, which means it should not be included. KyleJoantalk 13:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
KyleJoantalk, I never suggested outright immediately trusting The Blast. If you're asking for my personal opinion, from the original May 2019 hearings and reports, The Blast were the most conservative in reporting FreeBritney as conspiracy. My point was to say TMZ itself posted several conflicting posts, which were noted in the Wikipedia summary. I never posted this edit, and you can check that. You have removed that information, and I don't have a problem with that per se, but if you want to create an accurate account of this, I will repeat, you have removed that information from the Wikipedia. Furthermore, there were several other identifying articles removed (this time I cannot say whether it was you or someone else, I don't keep tabs on the Britney Spears article) pointing out the EXPERT evaluation following the highly documented controversy of the 2019 May hearings that have been noted in articles. It was later identified by the Wikipedia as an malpractice evaluation, so this is not per Original research at all. I understand you may not be informed on these events, they appear in articles such as The Blast, LA Times, NY Post and E Online. There are court documents also proving this. Here is the info declaring it an expert evaluation;
As NYT posts here, 'A court hearing in May of last year, where Britney made a rare appearance, led to an investigation of the conservatorship, fanning the flames of #FreeBritney.' Tess Barker and Barbara Gray, hosts of the “Britney’s Gram” podcast where they dive deep into Britney’s social media, are credited with launching the movement, as noted, but they later clarify the original hashtag began on a Britney fan blog, from 2009, BreatheHeavy. They organized their own version of it, which is all mentioned in the recent Billboard article here.
Here, The Blast mentions it despite their conservative reporting originally. HERE it says, 'The people responsible for controlling Britney Spears' life are now in the crosshairs of court investigators as the judge in her conservatorship case has ordered a thorough investigation of all the players who take part in planning her personal life, financial affairs and medical treatment.'
LA Times reports in September 2019 hearing which was largely believed to be the result of the expert evaluation, but it is unclear if it was or not due to it being sealed, as MENTIONED in the article itself as well, This was the second status hearing to be held on the conservatorship this year. In May, Penny ordered an independent expert evaluation of the case. here --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I do appreciate the clarity though, and any remaining information I have mentioned that I have not cited yet, please let me know. I will find it for you. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I just checked the FreeBritney section and it looks concise and well reported, and it also mentions the expert evaluation. I have nothing further to comment on. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

Well my request is that you add that fans of britney are boycotting her brand to stop funding the conservatorship. This was revealed on Twitter after Britney's team released the "Oops!...I Did It Again (Remixes and B-Sides)" for the alternative's album 20th Anniversary. 46.7.62.42 (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Old Photos

Here are somo photos from 1999-2000. Please ad them https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Britney_Spears_1999.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Britney_Spears_-_Meet_%26_Greet_08-05-2000_-_10.jpg Heyheyphotos (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

1992–present

I'm wondering what the consensus is on Spears' years active as an artist. She was signed by a talent scout at just 8 years old, and indeed, Spears herself places the age of 8 as the year she started working. This would've been the year 1990, when she was an understudy for "Ruthless" with Natalie Portman (who is the same age as her). Here notes this from reflecting on her January 2019 hiatus via Instagram.

Anyway, I'm wondering, should the years active be changed to 1990–2018 (on indefinite hiatus)? It seems disingenuous to pretend Spears is active, as she is approaching her two year anniversary of her hiatus announcement, and the recent releases are unreleased tracks recorded in the Glory era? As we know, the Spears brand continues, but Spears herself physically is not the one in charge of these decisions, given the nature of her legal dispute. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Records sold, 150M not 100M

Her records sales has been updated by Sony music and Spotify, she has sold 150M records and I think even more, billboard's article is just old and is not updated Moonlight Entm (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

BD2412, HD removed "songwriter" and "dancer" from the lead sentence of this article without any prior discussion nor consensus. If the lead sentence needs to be reduced, "actress" is the item that should go since Crossroads is the only motion picture that features Britney Spears as the lead. In all other cases, it was cameos. I see that Britney Spears has 73 songwriting credits (including one sole songwriting credit for the song 'Someday I Will Understand') [2]. And dancing is a very integral part of her artistry (her concerts, for instance, are very much dance-based); she is a trained dancer (from childhood). Britney Spears is a lot more known as a songwriter and dancer than a movie actress. Don't you agree? That said, I'd leave the lead sentence as it is. Israell (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand why certain editors have such a problem with songwriters who wrote (wrote and/or co-wrote) a lot of songs being defined as songwriters in the lead sentence of their articles. It is becoming problematic and time-consuming. The same debate over and over again. And it's becoming even more common for recording artists to write and/or co-write a lot their material. We should just apply WP:V and WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Israell (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A bold edit can be boldly reverted and referred to the talk page for discussion. You certainly have the right to follow that course. BD2412 T 03:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

Why do articles have famous people referred to by last name instead of first name?

-72.68.0.219 (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
MOS:LASTNAME. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-RS

I would suggest that the Showbiz411 ref be deleted, as Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9908:4467:7D2D:5F71 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Years active

Maybe change? See Talk:Britney_Spears/Archive_16#1992–present. Joey Camelaroche (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Britney_Spears/Archive_16&oldid=1083508959"