Talk:Justin Bieber

Education

Is there any information about his education? Did he finish school? What school? If not, when did he drop out? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Hamsterlopithecus: I found out that he's graduated from a high school. See this source. Where do you think the information should go? Early life? Personal life? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the controversy section?

I remember there being a section about the controversies Justin has been involved in, but where has it gone? His public image is filled with negative news reports of him disowning fans, legal issues and recently he egged a neighbour and and his friend has been busted for drugs. why has the section been removed? - SilentDan297 talk 13:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Best practice is to integrate controversial behaviour into the bulk of the prose, so it would be in the various sections of his biography, rather than all split out. We also wouldn't give undue weight to every celebrity tantrum; however, significant events with long-lasting widespread media coverage would be mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it as a way of censorship here, if what he does wrong is being reported in reliable sources then we cant go on like nothing ever happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Any events should have lasting notability not just be tabloid fodder for that week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. The recent discussion at BLPN also reached a similar consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So spinning the bottle would this also go for his Philanthropy and Endorsement ventures? Or how about the guy in the Toronto nightclub who placed the pop star in a chokehold? What makes a story notable here and what doesn't when it comes to his fandom? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Errr, see above? Three editors have shared their opinions - "significant events with long-lasting widespread media coverage" I've removed the chokehold paragraph, BTW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but 100 minor incidents adds up to something more than minor. The article should spend a a bit more time on something, like the arrest in Miami Beach, which may not be all that notable in itself but ought to be featured more simply as an example. At the moment, I think the article is misleading in its minimization of all these incidents. The media coverage of controversial behaviour has reached long-lasting status. This doesn't mean we necessarily need a "controversies" section, of course.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What is needed is a source discussing all these incidents as a whole rather than individually and how his image may have changed because of them these past couple years. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes well this Associated Press story is the sort of thing I am talking about here.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy sections" are the stuff of the National Enquirer -- this is an encyclopedia and not a supermarket tabloid. Collect (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also not a PR platform.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And if you read the current BLP, you will note that it is definitely not a PR platform. But Wikipedia is also not a tabloid. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If the New York Times wrote an overview article on Bieber of comparable length, you think it would look like this? It's not that bad an article, but a lot of text is spent on identifying the many shows he's been on, copies sold, etc. Are readers likely to object that more show appearances need to mentioned or that the article is oddly silent compared to what the media in general has been calling attention to lately? Let's not pretend here that today's developments in Miami were only reported by tabloids.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The NYT is not an encyclopedia. And what does it say? "Below the fold" and only article 2 under Arts. In short, a minor story, and not of major value to the NYT. WaPo? Below the fold, and in their video section, and coverage of bloggers. Encyclopedic? Not very. Collect (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The NYT also doesn't say "Milk was a bad choice!" but this article has that, raising the question of priorities. I just linked, above, to an AP wire carried by WaPo in "National". At issue here is whether Wikipedia is accurately reflective of the median authoritative sources or not. Are you going to exclude the major TV networks in both Canada and the U.S. by calling them tabloid TV?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No -- we follow WP:BLP which means we determine what is of encyclopedic value and what is not of encyclopedic value. We are not a catchall of his favourite breakfast food and TV shows, we must try to produce an article that people 50 years from now will see as being accurate about the person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

re "his favourite breakfast food" see Straw man. At issue here is your insinuation that BLP trumps WP:Neutral point of view. That AP wire I referred you to notes that "He was positioned as clean-cut and charming — even singing for President Barack Obama and his family at Christmas — but problems began to multiply as he got older." You seem to be resolved to keeping this sort of material out, despite the fact it can be presented in an encyclopedic way if done properly. Keep in mind the the primary mandate of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not keep in the dark.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicknamed "The Biebs"

user:Dr.K. reverted my contribution, stating "Google searches are not reliable sources." Fine. Choose a reliable result and then let THAT be the source. Omitting the factual content that I added compromises the completeness of the article. If you, Dr. K, omit anything I add again, I may report you for abuse. Understand? Ssredg (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please add a tidbit about his nickname on this article? (Personal attack removed) Dr.K. didn't like my source. Can someone please add it in such a way that (Personal attack removed) Dr.K. will approve of? Thanks in advance. Ssredg (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Find a couple of what Wikipedia considers reliable sources and we can add it in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, whether a source is considered reliable or not under WP guidelines, it still will not stop (Personal attack removed) editors ((Personal attack removed)) from destroying a contribution based solely on his personal taste. I ref'd my contribution accordingly (with Google search results), so that editor(s) can pick 1 or 2 "reliable" sources (again, subject to editor's tastes) and thus clean up the ref. Omitting this factual contribution, which according to Dr.K. isn't "encyclopaedic" enough (his personal taste, obviously), compromises the accuracy and completeness of the article. I will not - and I'm sure neither will you - allow one (Personal attack removed) editor to keep an article from being accurate and complete, won't we? Again, let's please use common sense here; if WP guidelines dictate that you jump off a cliff, would you? Exactly. Abusive editors should not be tolerated. Ever. Ssredg (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to report me for reverting your poorly-sourced unencyclopaedic trivia. But make sure you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before you direct any more ultimata or personal attacks at your fellow editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please make sure to use your common sense (oh, is that a personal attack now?) before making improper reverts and deletions. Remember, I said "if you..., I may..." In any case, reporting you for your abuse of WP's editing privileges is a proper step to take, last time I checked. And again, I said I may do it. Ssredg (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"If you, Dr. K, omit anything I add again..." Might want to look at WP:BOOMERANG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

NeilN: My contribution required cleanup, not omission. His act of reverting (w/o even the slightest bit of analysis, notice or any sort of systematic process/treatment) may be construed as abuse and thus, will not be tolerated. Ssredg (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

He gave you a reason: "Google searches are not reliable sources." If you cannot provide proper sources, expect to be repeatedly reverted and eventually blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

But this is why we have the talkpage of the article: to discuss and systematically analyse the proposed edit and find ways of including it, if it qualifies, in an appropriate, encyclopaedic manner. There was no way that this edit could be included the way it was initially proposed. First, we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice and say Nicknamed by entertainment media as "the Biebs," and then cite a Google search as proof, because this is vague and worded in a weasel way, and is a classic case of synthesis which is part of original research. We cannot go Googling stuff and then draw conclusions from these Google searches and report them to the article. This is synthesis. Before finding an appropriate way to formulate a sentence to include this nickname in the article, we must answer questions such as: How widespread is this nickname? Do all entertainment media call him that? If not, how many? Is it the majority? How can one establish that? How frequent is the use of the nickname? Did anyone analyse the use of this nickname amongst the media? Someone has to consider these factors before adding an appropriate sentence about the nickname into the article, so that they can find a way to phrase it in a neutral, encyclopaedic way, free from vague weasel words, original research and synthesis or WP:UNDUE issues. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And you didn't ask yourself that either, before reverting. Again, that was your personal taste. If I were to follow your twisted logic, then [Jennifer Lopez]'s nickname j.Lo must be a figment of my imagination and thus not worthy of mention in her article. Use your common sense before hitting the keyboard, OK? Think before you act. Consider cleaning first, rather than reverting. The goal is accuracy and completeness, not personal tastes. Ssredg (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And you didn't ask yourself that either, before reverting. But I did ask myself all these questions before reverting and that is why I reverted. You still have not answered the substance of my arguments and you still continue your personal attacks and crude instructions. There is no commonsense in your original research and synthesis and you should submit edits that are free of problems if you expect other editors not to revert them. And this is not the same as Jennifer Lopez's nickname because her nickname is widely accepted while Bieber's is not. Consider cleaning first, rather than reverting. I have no obligation to clean after your weasel words and synthesis. Rather, the onus is upon you to formulate your edit in a way that would be acceptable for inclusion in the article without original research and synthesis. The goal is accuracy and completeness, not personal tastes. Again, there was nothing accurate or complete with your synthetic edit. And don't confuse your original research with any personal tastes. If you cannot do that, chances are that your edit will be reverted as synthesis WP:SYNTH. I have no interest in pursuing this further since you show no indication of understanding what are the problems with your edit or learning from my explanations. But you do show an unmistakable aptitude for personal attacks. Let me give you a hint: Try to devote some energy in improving your edit, rather than spending all of it attacking other editors. Perhaps then you can come up with an acceptable edit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Legal troubles section

Carrying on from the above discussion, "Where is the controversy section?": I do not wish the conversation to continue there because we don't really want controversy sections here, do we? ("not a supermarket tabloid"...) However, instead of controversy, I have decided to start establish a legal troubles section, primarily focusing on Beiber's run-ins with the law all over the world, instead of his less serious but still stupid acts (Anne Frank etc). I anticipate some activity to arise due to my edit, thus I have taken the time to start a talk page section here. Note that in my edit, I have found 8 references (currently 134 - 141) which were only written after Beiber's recent arrest (demonstrating "significant events with long-lasting widespread media coverage" and "lasting notability not just be tabloid fodder for that week"), detailing Bieber's past troubles with the law, which is definitely substantial and not to swept under the carpet as separate, minor incidents. The sources were from The Washington Post, BBC News, CTV News, ABC News, The Times of India, Boston.com and the Los Angeles Times. At least some of the sources were definitely "discussing all these incidents as a whole rather than individually and how his image may have changed because of them these past couple years." Feel free to discuss. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 09:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP -- this new section is a train wreck, violating WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and acts as though Wikipedia should be a tabloid newspaper of the first water. The use of the "mug shot" is icing on this cake. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You throw WP:BLP like a giant book around - please elaborate. WP:UNDUE - maybe because the subject has faced many, many run-ins with the law? WP:NPOV - philanthropy is neutral, legal troubles aren't neutral? He has faced so many legal troubles, and that's not even mentioning controversies like insulting Anne Frank, and not a single one of them appeared on the page before. Now that, is what I call WP:NPOV. WP:SYNTH - every single sentence is sourced. Tabloid - yeah, all the sources provided clearly are tabloid material. <in hindsight, the sarcasm might not be so apparent in the previous sentence> Feel free to check and correct me on that. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK -- here it comes:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material

Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

WP:TABLOID: An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

And so on. The key part of BLP is that biographies must be written conservatively. I would point out that at WP:BLP/N, the use of mugshots has never been approved except if no other images can be found. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty easy to copy / paste chunks of policy, I was hoping you would match each part of the policy to each sentence to explain how each sentence violated policy. But it's fine, you can do it below. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Quoting policies usually isn't necessary, especially when it's possible simply to link to them. The question is how to apply them. Quoting them doesn't really take things very far. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No. This is accurate. Anyone who reinserts that mugshot photo can and should be blocked for violating WP:BLP and specifically violating WP:MUG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that a threat? You sound pretty aggressive to me. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should there be an automatic block when the policy only gives the red light to usage "out of context"? There should first be an inquiry into whether the context is appropriate and whether the subject is truly being cast in a "false" light, no? The fact that mass media have been repeatedly using this image but the cry BLP crowd considers it biased is an example of just how far WP:BLP has taken Wikipedia away from what reliable sources are the doing.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed." The image most certainly is not one which the subject wants to be presented and it shows the subject in a disparaging way and was one in which the photograph was not wanted and in a situation beyond their control. There is no encyclopedic value of the booking photo other than to poke fun at the recent details surrounding the individuals life. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear on this. The mugshot was in the article before I started the legal troubles section. I merely shifted it from the personal life to the legal troubles section. I am only half-jokingly when I say this: "situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed"? He was clearly smiling and prepared for the photo, and expected to be presented as smiling. "No encyclopedic value"? See my reply just below to Dr.K. on symbolism of the photo representing a change of image. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is a clear WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV issue. Choosing the mugshot, as the picture to fairly represent Bieber, is a BLP violation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If there were only one photo in the article, or if the mugshot is the "profile picture", yeah, it might be unfair to represent Bieber that way. But there are five other photos in the article. Below you mention "define / defining". But it's just... or would be, one out of six photos. Anyway, I'd say it is an appropriate picture for the legal troubles section, well, to show that he was arrested. His mugshot is symbolic - and this isn't me saying it, it's the Associated Press: Justin Bieber’s mug shot hints at the boy-next-door image he’s carefully crafted over the past several years, with a glistening smile and professionally upswept hair. But the red jail jumpsuit also visible in the photo tells a different story, one about the singer’s recent troubles and emergence as a bad boy.. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is that so many people who see BLP violations can't see obvious NPOV violations like refusing to follow the editorial practice of thousands of reliable sources in the outside media because you want to bias biographies in favour of flattering the subject? These same editors then typically refuse to extend the public relations courtesies to corporations because corporations don't have "feelings." There was once a time when NPOV reigned supreme and facts trumped feelings.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your assumption that individual editors "want to bias biographies in favour of flattering the subject" is unwarranted. Please assume good faith and discuss content not editors. If you feel WP:BLP should be less restrictive or extended to cover corporations, please open a discussion on that policy's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the content issue at stake here or do you just wish to express your opinion about me? My complaint is not based on an "assumption" but on the uncontested fact that editors are arguing we should not adopt the practice of reliable sources because doing so would be unflattering to the subject. As for opening a discussion, it is already open: should BLP be interpreted here so as to conflict with and override NPOV?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with SummerPhD's comments while at the same time noting that insisting that we illustrate Bieber with a mugshot is not a matter of "flattery" or "feelings" but a matter of fairness and logic. It would be ridiculous to define Bieber's image with a mugshot just because of one incident in his life involving the police while at the same time ignoring the overwhelming volume of coverage that all the other moments of his public life have got. Bieber's body of work cannot be defined by this police incident and this incident does not define Bieber's image. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Now this is the sort of accuracy-based argument I have been waiting to hear. I don't think it is "ridiculous" any more than this comprehensive Washington Post article carrying an Associated Press story is "ridiculous" for prominently featuring the mugshot, but at least this is an effort to appeal to something other than giving the subject a courtesy.--23:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you should consider that this is an encyclopedic article and as such it cannot be defined by a newspaper article. The newspaper article defines a moment in time, such as this police incident. The encyclopedic article tries to depict Bieber's life which is the sum of a myriad of moments. Choosing a single moment to represent the sum total of Bieber's public life is completely unjustifiable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Many newspaper stories only address a single day's events but that isn't the case here. Does the line in this particular article "He was positioned as clean-cut and charming — even singing for President Barack Obama and his family at Christmas — but problems began to multiply as he got older." address only a single moment in time? The issue is whether we should freeze the article at his prior "positioning." By the way, I don't believe anyone is arguing that this material should dominate the article. In the case of the booking photo, the issue is not whether to feature it, it's whether to have it all. There should be a way to indicate to the reader that the arrest wasn't exactly a bolt out of the blue without this being presented as "the sum total."--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Collect that the "Legal troubles" section has a lot of speculation, minor incidents and unproven allegations and violates WP:UNDUE and BLP amongst other policies or guidelines. Being accused of something does not qualify as "legal trouble". The section should be removed and the items should be discussed on talk individually to gain consensus before being reinserted. This is the revival of the rejected criticism section by another name and is even worse than before because it includes more minor incidents and unproven allegations. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed the section back to one paragraph, subject to what is eventually decided here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming and not bothering to attempt to discuss what should or should not be included, despite the fulfilment of the criteria you proposed in the above "controversy" section. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean the stuff about the pet monkey and the graffiti? You're very welcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now you have elaborated, good. But you didn't remove only the pet monkey and the graffiti... you removed nearly everything, including his first arrest. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The untouched paragraph started with, "Leading up to his first arrest in January 2014..." [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You removed everything from 2013-2014. I should have been clearer, I meant that you removed the details of his first arrest, what his first arrest was for (DUI etc). starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. In my opinion, we should include legal issues only if they have been proven in a court of law. Any other incident is just speculation and rumour, good perhaps for a tabloid, but unfit to be included in an encyclopaedic biography. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

All I see from above is throwing around of policy, and mostly discussion of the mugshot which was already present in the article. Who has bothered to actually discuss the content and references which I added in detail (instead of the mugshot), instead of merely broadly dismissing the content and references as "a train wreck", "has a lot of speculation, minor incidents and unproven allegations", and most worryingly "Any other incident is just speculation and rumour". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is important to think about the purpose of adding the previous troubles with the law. Incidents that might not have seemed notable or seem to be "minor" can become more notable due to his first arrest. This is because it is a pattern, a build-up of events that culminated (L.A. Times' word for it) in his arrest. I am trying to depict Bieber's life which is the sum of a myriad of moments. His arrest was due to driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs, drag racing, and for resisting arrest without violence. So apparently, Bieber has problems with a) Driving, b) Alcohol c) Drugs. So when I look back at the previous incidents, which of these have to do with a) Driving, b) Alcohol c) Drugs? They should have a higher priority of being included. I'd also like to include a further category d) elaboration of Bieber's troubles around the world. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1)Leading up to his first arrest in January 2014, Bieber had numerous run-ins with the law around the world to develop a wild "bad boy" reputation, in contrast to his original cultivated boy-next-door image.

A summary and comparisons of image before and after. Quotes: "Bieber’s image: From boy-next-door to bad boy" / "Justin Bieber’s mug shot hints at the boy-next-door image he’s carefully crafted over the past several years... the singer’s recent troubles and emergence as a bad boy" / "...music career has taken a backseat to his wild boy antics" starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

2)Back in October 2011, Bieber was pulled over while driving and warned by Los Angeles police.

a) Driving. In the sources I searched for (all published after his DUI arrest in 2013), this was the earliest mentioned incident, albeit a more minor one. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

3)In May 2012, the singer was accused of attacking a photographer, Jose Hernandez-Duran, but Bieber did not face charges after prosecutors cited "insufficient evidence".

4)Bieber was also accused of reckless driving in his neighbourhood in 2012, but prosecutors again declined to press charges.

a) Driving. This is also related to Bieber's (specifically driving in the) neighbourhood, as are other incidents. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

5)Bieber also faced numerous legal troubles in 2013.

Just a simple point. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

6)A neighbor accused Bieber of spitting in his face after he confronted Bieber regarding Bieber's speeding through the neighborhood.

a) Driving. Second incident of Bieber allegedly driving dangerously in the neighbourhood. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

7)In a separate incident, police had to be called in after neighbour Keyshawn Johnson also confronted Bieber regarding speeding.

a) Driving. Third incident of Bieber allegedly driving dangerously in the neighbourhood. The more instances, the more notable, I'd say. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

8)2013 also saw several lawsuits targeted at Bieber, photographer Jeffrey Binion sued Bieber and one of his bodyguards for $15,000 in damages for allegedly attacking him and stealing his memory card, while a former bodyguard was seeking more than $420,000 in compensation, claiming that the pop star berated him and punched him during an argument. The latter case is scheduled to go to trial in February 2014.

9)Bieber's troubles were not confined to the United States. Also in 2013, Bieber was asked to remove graffiti he had left on the wall of a hotel in Australia. That came a month after he was charged in Brazil over a similar offence of vandalism, while he also upset Colombian authorities with his graffiti.

d) elaboration of Bieber's troubles around the world. It is sourced that the government (agencies?) of three countries have been offended by Bieber's graffiti vandalism. of which Brazil charged him with vandalism and Australia asked him to clean it up, but he did not. I'd say these multiple instances make it more notable. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

10)He was also accused of disrespecting the Argentine flag after he used a microphone to mop the floor with it during a concert in Buenos Aires. Meanwhile, Bieber's pet monkey Mally was quarantined in Germany after Bieber failed to produce the required vaccination and import papers. Mally was later re-homed at a safari park.

d) elaboration of Bieber's troubles around the world - but unconnected to the other incidents, so therefore more minor. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

11)Bieber's tour buses were raided twice in 2013 in Detroit and Sweden while Bieber was not present; the raids turned up unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in the former incident and marijuana in the latter.

c) Drugs and d) elaboration of Bieber's troubles around the world. Specifically, marijuana was found on Bieber's tour bus in Sweden, and Bieber's DUI involved marijuana as well. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

12)In early January 2014, after a neighbor accused Bieber of tossing eggs at his house, causing $20,000 in damage and almost injuring a 13-year-old girl, police searched Bieber's Calabasas home, resulting in Bieber's friend Lil Za being arrested on cocaine possession charges. Police are still investigating the felony vandalism case.

c) Drugs. Significant not because of the eggs, but because cocaine was found in 'plain view' in Bieber's home. Prelude to arrest. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think more than 3 or 4 sentences should be spent on this.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if we want to trim it down to reduce undue weight, we can remove 3) and 8), the lawsuits which are unrelated to his latest arrests, also satisfies Dr. K's "only if they have been proven in a court of law". 2) and 10) are related to a) and d) but are more minor / unconnected, so they can be ignored in view of the addition of stronger points below. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

4), 6) and 7) are interconnected and strongly related to Bieber driving dangerously in his neighbourhood and I strongly feel they should be included, even if they have to be combined or summarised. I also feel 9) should be strongly included because of the pattern of graffiti upsetting authorities in three separate countries, and Bieber was actually charged with vandalism in Brazil. 11) is related to two points: c) and d), and it wasn't one raid, but two in different countries! 12) is only related to c) but surely having drugs (cocaine) found in your home is serious, and this happened less than two weeks before Bieber's arrest. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1) and 5) are points, not examples. I don't see why 1)'s elaboration of Bieber's image was removed from the article. It was sourced, see the quotes. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that there should be inclusion of the things Bieber has done per the WP:RS that have come forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty interesting - when I originally added the legal troubles section and started this section on the talk page, it was 17:33 <I set my time on Wikipedia to my own time zone, causing a timing error> 09:33, 25 January 2014?. Within 24 hours, we have editors like Collect, ChrisGualtieri, NeilN and Dr.K. voicing their opposition (posting multiple times at that) of some sort on the talk page, and together, some of them removed almost all of the content and reliable references I added from the article. By 18:40 10:40, 26 January 2014, I have posted the entire legal troubles section on the talk page, and analysed each previous incident sentence by sentence, in the hope that at least some can be determined by consensus to be worthy of inclusion in the article. But within the next 24 hours, after the section has been removed from the article, the above four have not posted here at all to offer their comments despite my attempts to stimulate a discussion on the talk page - despite all of them being active on Wikipedia since 18:40 10:40, 26 January 2014. I hope that ignoring the current discussion doesn't mean their previous stance of opposing the "legal troubles" added still stands. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The proper Wikipedia policies have been cited. Read them. Abide by them. Experienced editors have explained them. Violating the policies is likely to lead to people being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with starship on this. Bieber's been in a string of problems with the law over the past year. To not cover them and focus on his "Twitter" instead really looks like the Beliebers are at work trying to protect him. We don't need to cover every trivial issue, but he has certainly been in a few controversies which are well-covered in reliable sources and to not include them in my opinion looks like cherry picking and affects neutrality. I agree with Correct to an extent that it's a delicate issue and that it can easily come across as a "train wreck" and tabloid fodder, but to avoid it completely in my opinion also affects NPOV and looks like censorship to me. I think readers would expect to read about some of his run ins with the law in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect's reply at best broadly dismisses my attempt to generate discussion to contribute to the article, as you have already done before above. At worst, you (Collect) simply ignored what I have posted, as well as issued a veiled threat. You had the chance to rebut sentences 1) to 11) point-by-point, in fact I did ask you to do so above... Pretty easy to copy / paste chunks of policy, I was hoping you would match each part of the policy to each sentence to explain how each sentence violated policy. But it's fine, you can do it below. Your refusal seems to indicate to me that you consider a proper rebuttal beneath you. Unlike you, I will rebut your post - the one with the huge chunk of policy - below. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Long point-by-point reply from starship.paint to Collect regarding Collect's citing of BLP

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Okay... and what? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Fine. I did consider this - instead of a controversy section, where I could focus on ridiculous things Bieber has done like call Anne Frank a possible Beliber, being carried up the Great Wall of China, visiting strip clubs, spraying Bill Clinton's photo with cleaning fluid - I chose to focus on the legal troubles. Simple as that. It's not sensationalist when there's a pattern / a build-up of his troubles. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material Okay... and what? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Is it fair to mention Philantrophy, Endorsements and Twitter, but not elaborate on his more serious misdoings which might lead to legal consequences? Is it fair to fail to elaborate on the build-up of Bieber's flouting of the law after multiple reliable sources have covered it? Amongst the reliable sources I cited I provide three titles - "Justin Bieber - Growing up disgracefully" / "Bieber’s image: From boy-next-door to bad boy" / "Justin Bieber's Miami Beach arrest is more culmination than aberration" starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Oh yes. I think the eight sources are provided are reliable. I think the information I provided is relevant, because the previous acts built up to the first arrest. Remember - the sources I provided were not "breaking news" reports of Bieber commiting wrongdoing A / B. They were all summaries of Bieber's past, documenting things from 2011 to Jan 2014, and all were published after Bieber's first arrest in 2014. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information. I'm afraid Bieber doesn't qualify for this. "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow." -> "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) WP:TABLOID: An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Okay fine. We can take out some details. Above I have labelled sentence 1) to 11). I am no longer lobbying to include all of them. We can combine / summarise 4), 6) and 7), as well as the various vandalism cases in 9). Enduring notability is established, see my above point - not "breaking news" reports but a reflection of Bieber's past. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Enduring notability is established, see my above point - not "breaking news" reports but a reflection of Bieber's past. I did not use routine reporting. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Beliebers editing this article trying to protect him. Do you really believe that? I removed a chunk of trivial and not-so-trivial offences [2] and made the observation that we should not add a laundry list of his purported misdoings but rather try to integrate them in an image section. Starship.paint has suggested trimming the section to three of four points which is good and I have no objection to that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it wasn't me, it was Brian Dell who suggested it. I am trying to comply for the sake of consensus. Here is my edited text. One point sentence then four examples / elaboration sentences. Leading up to his first arrest in January 2014, Bieber had numerous run-ins with the law around the world to develop a "bad boy" reputation, in contrast to his originally cultivated boy-next-door image. In 2013, Bieber was charged in Brazil with vandalism; in the same year, Bieber's graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities. Meanwhile, Bieber's neighbours in the community of Calabasas, such as Keyshawn Johnson have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding within the neighbourhood. Bieber's tour buses were raided twice in 2013 in Detroit and Sweden while Bieber was not present; the raids turned up unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in the former incident and marijuana in the latter. Less than two weeks before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for possessing drugs believed to be cocaine. How is it? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of these are unproven allegations. They may have been reported in reliable sources but most of this stuff has not been proven in a court of law. In the bus incident he was not even there. What the neighbours allege is unproven. Same goes for the authorities who are "upset" about his alleged vandalism. This is innuendo at its worst. And what does Bieber have to do with the behaviour of his girlfriend? Nothing, except for the innuendo of course. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

a) I'm afraid you can't play the allegation card for Bieber. You have to thank Collect for pointing me to policy. WP:BLPCRIME says "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." However, right after that there's "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow", where it says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't play the allegation card for Bieber. Please do not presume to attribute motives to my edit. I came here in good faith to contribute my ideas toward improving this article. So I do not appreciate being met with fake exclamations about my alleged motives. Moving forward, I repeat once more: You are trying to integrate a number of unproven allegations and speculation, some of which do not even involve Bieber directly, (for instance the girlfriend allegations and the bus incident), into a speculative whole to advance the status of mere media speculation into an encyclopedic entry. It is my opinion, that under any standards, BLP, SYNTH, etc., this is not acceptable. I accept of course that this is a community project, so naturally I will abide by any consensus that develops. So let's wait for others to chime in. It is obvious we disagree, so let's wait for the opinion of others instead of arguing needlessly between us. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I get the vibe that you were deeply insulted by my first sentence there, I guess that's why you didn't even read the first sentence of the next paragraph. (you got the girlfriend's gender wrong, unless you are not referring to Lil Za, if so you are not referring to something I have actually added to the article) I think you should definitely clarify your "girlfriend" comment, otherwise it seems invalid to me if there wasn't even any "girlfriend" allegations in the first place. If you are referring to Lil Za, do reply to b) below. I'm not sure why you even interpreted my first sentence that way, I don't see a better word for "for" in that sentence. Would "I'm afraid you can't play the allegation card for the Justin Bieber article." better help you understand what I was trying to say? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

b) I shall address the bus incident and the behaviour of his "girlfriend" (really a guy though) together. How are the incidents noteworthy and relevant? Think about the similarities between these two incidents and Bieber's first arrest. In all three cases, drugs were involved, and in all three cases, Bieber's friends and/or entourage were involved. Remember, Bieber was not arrested driving drunk and high on drugs alone. If he was, then these two incidents become less relevant. However, Khalil, his friend, was also arrested and charged with DUI. In the bus incident, even if Bieber was not around at the time, his entourage were found having unspecified drugs in Detroit and in Sweden, marijuana (which Bieber was arrested for being under the influence while driving). Now, for Bieber's boy-friend, I disagree that Bieber has nothing to do with his behaviour. This is not Lil Za on the street sniffing glue by himself. This friend, Lil Za, was actually staying in Bieber's house, and he brought drugs to Bieber's house, leaving them in plain view. As the host, Bieber has a certain degree of responsibility to ensure no illegal activities are going on, especially regarding people who are staying in his home, who brought illegal drugs into his home, and who are leaving said drugs in plain view. I wonder why nobody stopped Lil Za? So this is why these incidents are noteworthy and relevant - compared to the first arrest of Bieber, they involve the similarities of drugs and Bieber's friends/entourage's involvement. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

c) What the neighbours alleged are unproven - yes, but they become relevant due to Bieber's driving troubles with his first arrest. They are more noteworthy because there seems to be at least three incidents of these allegations, once in 2012 and twice in 2013. Furthermore, it's not like the neighbours straightaway brought their accusations to the media to slander Bieber - no, for the two times in 2013, the neighbours actually confronted Bieber in person regarding his driving, which led to media reports when police had to intervene after the confrontations. So again, they are noteworthy due to multiple instances of accusations, as well as in-person confrontations. They are relevant because Bieber committed a driving offence for his first arrest, and this is about driving as well. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

d) For the graffiti vandalism, the Brazil incident is no allegation - he was charged with "tagging or otherwise defiling a building or urban monument". This makes the other two instances in Australia and Colombia more noteworthy and relevant - graffiti all around. I don't see what's so alleged - there is video of Bieber spray-painting graffiti in Australia, and the Gold Coast mayor asked him to clean it up. Here is photo evidence of Bieber's graffiti in Bogota, Colombia. Are the authorities "upset"? That's for the reliable sources to say, and the answer is yes. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I get the vibe that you were deeply insulted by my first sentence there, I guess that's why you didn't even read the first sentence of the next paragraph. I don't know where you get your "vibe" from but for sure it ain't from me. Because it didn't bother me in the least. I simply wanted to tell you to not be presumptuous, because it is simply not a good practice. But my effort obviously failed because you replied with even more presumption. This is not going anywhere. I will disengage from this back and forth and let other editors chime in as I said before. Obviously, please feel free to have the last word. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It was your lack of action in replying to the rest of my post (again!) that causes me to presume. It seems to me that you are dodging bullets. Likewise, I again challenged you to explain your "girlfriend" comment, and you failed to do so again, instead only focusing on my first sentence. You should have to explain the "girlfriend" comment, because it is wholly invalid. There are no "girlfriend" allegations, that I added, or were there when I added to the article, period. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:WELLKNOWN the majority of the events covered in the points above by User:Starship.paint are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented to include in the article, and abide by WP:BLPCRIME. Instead of going back and forth. lets decide what to include in the article, since there is quite a bit of content that should be included, that was removed. Every event was covered by reliable sources so that is not an issue, and the majority are infact very notable and especially relevant as how it ties into his first arrest, on do not forget pretty major crimes. STATic message me! 17:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree but the things included should be things that have been proven to be true, right now there is his drag racing issue as well as turning himself in to face assult charges in Canada. These kind of things are not just being reported by tabloids anymore. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I think I have done enough talk here. It's been five or six days now. I have explained as much as I can and backed up my content as much as I can. Editors like Knowledgekid87, Dr. Blofeld and STATic have come to support the re-addition of my removed content due to WP:RS and WP:WELLKNOWN. Editors like Brian Dell and NeilN have supposedly supported trimming my added content to 3 or 4 points; I have messaged them both on their talk pages to see the purple text; Brian Dell didn't reply, NeilN did, but none of them have weighed in here despite them continuing to edit on Wikipedia, so I am going to go ahead; also, the content I am adding is going to be 4 sentences long. Collect has broadly cited policy, which I have attempted to refute point-by-point in the collapsed text, but has apparently disengaged from this discussion and is editing other articles. Dr.K. has apparently chosen to disengage from the discussion after leaving points, I have repeatedly tried to refute the points, but I don't think a reply will be coming. The rest of the editors only posted in the mugshot sub-section of this discussion, and that sub-section looks to be settled down. So, I am going to take action now. I am going to include the purple text into the article now. There will be a small change, anything about his change of image to "bad boy", I am going to transfer to the 3 Style, image and fans section, not the personal life section. Thanks to everyone who has taken time to reply to the discussion. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your "refutation" wasn't/ It was TLDR "stuff" showing that you fail to understand the WP:BLP policy and reasons behind it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not People magazine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Again you make the sweeping statements. I have wrote quite a lot and all I get is "you fail to understand" and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". No elaboration for me to work on. I will read the WP:BLP again now - will post if I somehow "see the light". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact is this: WP:BLP has specific requirements. One is that any contentious claim requires strong sourcing. Period. "Speculation" as to motive is the purest tabloid fodder, and does not belong in any BLP. And writing a thousand words does not alter the policy. Cheers. `Collect (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Speculation" as to motive -> you are clearly referring to the "suggested that" content I added recently. Fine, I accept and I am not protesting that. I started a whole new section about the petition, not the motive, below. To tell you the truth, and this is not blaming NeilN at all, I talked to NeilN on his talk page. He suggested adding that particular source to the image section regarding Bieber's image change, but wasn't explicit about what content to add. NeilN seems experienced, and I agreed with him. So I added content of my own accord and take responsibility for that. Maybe I chose the wrong content to add. So remove that content on speculation as to motive, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with removing the petition, and have started a section below. And writing a thousand words thus not alter policy, but maybe, just maybe, it shows which policy is not applicable at a certain time and place. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have also read WP:BLP. What stands out most to me is WP:WELLKNOWN. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. I intend to abide by that. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Try reading discussions at WP:BLP/N and note that "WELLKNOWN" is readily abused, and is not regarded as a reason for such stuff as "he takes Xanax" or the like -- such stuff is a medical record, and is not of biographical merit. Also the "petition" is totally irrelevant to the person -- try reading the definition of "biography" please. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a straw man argument to me. "He takes Xanax" might not be of merit, but "He was proven to be under the influence of Xanax while driving, and was arrested for it" is, and the latter is what you removed. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I see your problem -- you say that he was "proven to be under the influence of Xanax" which is not what the sources actually say. When we make such leaps, we are not acting as editors but as prosecutors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's a mistake in my wording on my part, although he was indeed arrested for driving under the influence, it was stated that alprazolam (Xanax) was in his system at the point of his arrest, which would be when the whole incident happened. Regardless, my phrasing mistake here has no bearing on the article - because the article's content is accurate, and says what the secondary sources say. There is no such "leap" in the article. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling a fan a beached whale

Justin Bieber called one of his fans a "beached whale", making her cry. He then remarked that she should go on The Biggest Loser. See this article for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football1607 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTNEWS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, but maybe we should add a page on reasons people think he should be deported.Football1607 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Football1607

Short answer: No. Long answer: No, we are an encyclopedia, not Facebook. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Petition to deport Bieber is most signed in White House website

I added the following to the article, in the Style, image and fans section. I believe it fits the image part, specifically. "In late January 2014, a February 2014}}</ref> Collect reverted, stating "petition" is not relevant to a biography and is tabloid news at best. So, I'd like to discuss. Is it? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The strikethrough was for the old text originally added. The updated version is such: In late January 2014, Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by a petition created on the White House's website which described Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations (sic) youth" thus calling for Bieber to be deported. The petition attracted over 200,000 signatures, becoming the most popular of all open White House petitions within days.

Personally, I think that this is relevant to the article. This has to do with Bieber's image. 200,000 people have endorsed the petition so far, this is no small amount. It is also connected to a highly official avenue (the White House). By endorsing this, they are thinking that the presence of Bieber in society is negative, so he should be deported. Doesn't that have to do with image? Therefore, 200,000 people have a negative image of Bieber, negative to the point that they think he should be deported, I think that this is no small number and is notable. Furthermore, the petition has the highest number of signatures on the White House website based on petitions currently open. Is that not significant? The White House has to reply to those with over 100,000 signatures, but it hasn't done so yet (the petition only recently crossed the 100k mark) starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Or is this an issue of sourcing? Does Forbes and TIME report much tabloid news? ABC News? CNN News? Toronto Sun? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as Collect doesn't even have the decency to post his one-sentence reply regarding the petition in the correct section, here it is: Also the "petition" is totally irrelevant to the person -- try reading the definition of "biography" please. - 14:02, 31 January 2014. Not sure what policy Collect brought up here. It is relevant, because the petition has to do with the negative image of Bieber by the American public, and it therefore fits in the image section. I am restoring the info with further clarifications to its relevancy, and with additional better sources. To be explicit, the petition describes Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing" and "a terrible influence on our nations youth". That, is Bieber's image, endorsed by over 200,000 people. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Not have the decency"??? Try the fact that I actually have a life and am not obsessed with showing the world how "evil" Bieber is. BTW, the WH does not have any obligation to deal with a petition for it do do what it can not legally do! Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So not-so-indirectly, you are accusing me of not having a life? Well well well. You need to read my above replies again: the petition is relevant to Bieber's image, that's why it was posted in the Image section. Whether he is actually deported is irrelevant. As for "any obligation", are you so arrogant as to outright contradict the three reliable sources I have provided? Links are above. TIME: "Today it surpassed the 100,000 mark, which means the White House is required to issue an official response." Reuters: "on Wednesday passed the 100,000-signature mark needed to require a White House response." CNN: "A petition calling for the deportation of Canadian-born Justin Bieber surpassed the 100,000 signature threshold, meaning the White House must, by its own rules, issue a response." You did not bring up any sources to support yourself. This is not the first time you have made a factual error while reverting content from the Bieber article. Earlier, you claimed especially since it appears only proper meds were in his system regarding Bieber, despite the sources saying THC, a component in marijuana. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems to me that you answered that you couldn't post your one-sentence reply in the correct section... because unlike other people, you have a life. Did I get that right? You made that mistake because you have a life. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the BLP -- your asides are of no value to that end. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it; online petitions have no legal status or weight in the slightest. The White House one in particular is well-known by now as attracting legions of kooks and nuts trying to get their proverbial 15 minutes. (case in point; I signed the deportation one too). It is not relevant to a Wikipedia WP:BLP, and will not be reappearing in this article. - (unsigned comment by Tarc)

No legal status - okay, but legal status doesn't matter for Bieber's image. Not relevant to WP:BLP - which part of the policy says that? will not be reappearing in this article - how very arrogant. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont know about this, looking at Texas secession movements#Other discussions of secession starting in 2012 the article does mention the white house polling, while it does have no legal status it is notable in the fact that a pop star's visa status has reached the White House. I am not sure how often this happens though where enough signatures are gathered for it to reach the white house though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, I recognize your name as being very active and don't recall ever having a strong opinion of a decision you've made...but this one I don't understand. Who are you to proclaim that this "will not be reappearing in this article."? His entire career is based on media coverage. This fits the bill. This is noted in several reliable sources. Clearly, the white house won't deport him, but this deserves mention. --Onorem (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, these petitions are PR nonsense, there is noting particularly significant or noteworthy in getting 100,000 clicks (not necessarily, or even likely, 100,000 actual individuals) to click a button on a website. This thing has been used to call for things from Piers Morgan's deportation out the construction of a Death Star. A pop star being the subject of this is not notable in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WTF is your point? Your article is about them quadrupling the required number of sigs...and this still hit it. This is a very public figure with a story about his very public persona, and many reliable sources talking about a public petition. How many thousands have to sign before their opinion is more important than yours? PR nonsense? His career is PR? --Onorem (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

noting particularly significant or noteworthy in getting 100,000 clicks - apparently the White House doesn't think so, because its official policy states that it must respond to any petition getting over that number. This, is reliably sourced by sources I have provided above and below. Something I posted below - There are more reliable sources other than TIME/Forbes/Reuters/The Independent/MarketWatch I mentioned above. There's Agence France Presse, BBC, Associated Press. The four news agencies mentioned in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources have been covered here. Also, the fact that so many news agencies have covered this incident, screams to me that they think this is significant and/or noteworthy. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, I beg everyone to read my rationale and arguments above again. This is regarding Bieber's image in the eyes of the American public. The fact that the White House is required by its own rules to issue a response makes it significant. Whether the White House actually issues a response, or whether the White House has the power to deport Bieber - both are irrelevant - they have nothing to do with Bieber's image. If the White House directly comments on Bieber's image - now that might be relevant. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How the removed content satisfied WP:WELLKNOWN - relevant / noteworthy/ well documented - by starship

Originally posted at WP:BLPN - Essentially, the content was posted in the "style, image and news" section of Bieber's article. The petition reflects Bieber's image in the eyes of the American public. 200,000 people have endorsed Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing" and "a terrible influence on our nations youth". This is relevant to Bieber's image. Petitions that cross the 100,000 signature mark require an official White House response. Bieber's petition has doubled that and become the most popular open petition on the website. This makes it noteworthy. Whether the White House has the legal authority to deport Bieber has nothing to do with Bieber's image and thus should not even be discussed, whereas the mere existence of the petition with its signatures reflects Bieber's image. The multiple sources I provided above prove that this incident is well documented. Since nobody has cited policy yet, I will: the content fits WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to copy and paste the current discussion of this issue on WP:BLPN from there to here, but that is not allowed according to Collect. Fine. To all contributing to this discussion, please take note: THERE IS ANOTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS VERY ISSUE AT WP:BLPN. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding validity of petitions reaching the 100,000 mark and how serious they are, Mother Jones published a reaction by Matt Lehrich, an assistant White House press secretary, confirming in an email to Mother Jones and quoted in the magazine's story titled White House Vows to Respond to Petition Demanding Deportation of Justin Bieber: "Every petition that crosses the threshold [meaning 100,000] will be reviewed by the appropriate staff and receive a response. Response times vary based on total volume of petitions, subject matter, and a variety of other factors." This confirms the White House will answer eventually, or else the whole system of petitions it announced is bogus. The White House cannot make a mockery of a system it initiated as a valid recourse. Either the system works, or it is a lot of BS. I consider Wikipedia's move in censoring the mentioning of the petition now that it has passed the legal landmark set by the White House itself, as over-protective and over-sensitive. Meanwhile the whole international media is giving credibility and importance to the petition while we are endlessly discussing whether to include it or not. werldwayd (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is censorship, the petition has grown to over 250,000 signatures now with now a US senator responding in support. [3][4] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tossing around words like "censorship" is a mark of ignorance, not of an informed comment. I highly doubt anyone who is weighing-in against this is a "Belieber" or whatever his fanbase is referred to as nowadays, but are those who hold the project to a high standard of WP:BLP protection, even when the subject is a spoiled rich kid who doesn't deserve it. Yes, the White House "must" respond, and said responses are delegated to some minor policy wonk to deliver some tongue-in-cheek response, as the Death Star one was. It is notable enough to mention in the petition article; it has no relevance whatsoever to Bieber's biography. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody (from this section at least) has said opponents to the addition of the (negative) content are Beliebers. It is possible that they (the opponents) are merely "those who hold the project to a high standard of WP:BLP protection". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarc: Throwing things like WP:BLP and 'high standard' as an argument is totally bullshit. This is a VERY notable event with significant coverage. There has even been multiple in-depth analysis into whether he could actually be deported based on his current criminal record. The only reason I can possibly see to NOT include it is to selectively censor certain [negative] aspects of his life. Convenient suppression of speech about such events are not 'ignorance'; they are the definition of Censorship.

Your earlier argument for "It doesn't matter, these petitions are PR nonsense, there is noting particularly significant or noteworthy in getting 100,000 clicks" appears to be a classic WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. The fact is the white house doesn't consider them nonsense and just because you think it's nonsense doesn't mean you get to push your agenda onto Wikipedia. --CyberXRef^☎ 01:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"I don't like" middling, unimportant criticisms filling up a BLP article, I will not argue that point in the slightest. What Joe Random ePetition-Signer thinks of Justin Bieber is not at all relevant to his bio, there's nothing more to it than that. The fact that a thing appears in a reliable source does not get said thing an automatic entry into a Wikipedia article. We use discretion and intelligent analysis to separate the meaningful from the undue. Don't even get me started on the fanciful "deportation" angle, that's even more half-witted than this petition thing is. Tarc (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think people forget that Wikipedia's core policies are Neutral point of view (NPOV) , Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR) when It comes down to a WP:BLP. While BLP articles are to be protected against vandalism, there is no stopping the bio person's actions and the results that come with it good or bad that get reported in reliable sources. Per WP:EFFECT the petition should be included, white house petitions are already included in Death Star and as I pointed out earlier Texas secession movements#Other discussions of secession starting in 2012, what makes this article any different? If it is to protect Bieber from harm then there is an issue here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this because of the negativity, I oppose it because it is ignorant, unimportant, ephemeral fluff akin to an non-scientific online opinion poll. Trust me, if a White House petition to award Bieber a basket of puppies, a fleet of unicorns, and a million dollars a day for life gets 100,000 "people" to sign it, I'd oppose mention of that as well. Tarc (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Depends who signs. A signature by the Pope would be big news. Hey, you started with the hypotheticals. What about that photo with his friend, uh, you know, uh, each doing something with the same woman at the same time? Yikes. I will try to have more useful comments in future.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't read tabloids, so I have no idea what the thing about the women is all about. As for the Pope, sure, if the Pope says Bieber should hit the road that could be article-worthy as that would be a significant and notable person delivering an opinion. When the Pope said that Pokemon wasn't the work of the devil, that was certainly newsworthy. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

But the Pope isn't an American... right? But Senator Mark Warner is. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

May we ask for a road map, to show us where the point is? Tarc (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sen. Warner has expressed support for the petition. That surely increases noteworthiness from an important American. But the Pope isn't even American. What does he have to do with deporting Bieber from anywhere other than Argentina or the Vatican City? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate the notability of the Pope, and the influence his words have beyond the walls of the Vatican, because that is an argument that you will lose, and will look rather silly doing so. As for Senator Warner;

“As a dad with three daughters, is there some place I can sign?” Warner joked on Hampton Roads, Va., station FM 99’s “Rumble in the Morning” when asked about the petition. The Virginia Democrat also tweeted a link to the clip of his answer, confirming his position. “It’s true: I’m not a #Belieber,” Warner said.

(boldface is mine). You need to recognize the difference between going along with the gag (as noted in the beginning, I signed it as well) and serious political discourse. This was the former. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course the Pope is a very important person. If he publicly criticized Bieber it would be relevant and notable. Yet, his hypothetical signature on the petition would be as irrelevant as China's President Xi Jinping's signature because as non-Americans, why are they commenting on America's deportation policy? However, it is the other part of the petition which is more relevant - the view of Bieber as "dangerous" and a negative influence to youth - that, would be relevant and notable if endorsed by the Pope.

Warner "joked" is an interpretation. Not all sources report that he was joking, for example CNN. Even if he was joking, it doesn't mean he doesn't support the petition, the words are clear that he supports the petition. Even your Politico source is clear - look at its title - "Mark Warner wants to sign Justin Bieber petition" starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, it says "joked" right in the source, I'm afraid (hint, it's in bold). You're rapidly losing any credibility in this discussion. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you who has misunderstood me. "joked" is an interpretation not by you, but by Politico. It would have been clearer if you read my next line which said that not every source out there reported that he was joking. Out of all the lines in my reply, you focused on only one and misinterpreted it. How about the line after that which stated that regardless of whether he was joking, the main point is that he still supported the petition, and your own Politico source backed that up in its title? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

New incident: Oxygen Mask-gate

It appears that there has been a new incident since the current legal troubles content were added. @Tofutwitch11: tried to add this to the article earlier but it was reverted because it was not discussed here. @CyberXRef: brought this up at BLP/N. So here it is, NBC News conducted an investigation where they cite multiple law enforcement sources claiming that Bieber, his father and his entourage smoked so much marijuana on board their private jet that the pilots were forced to wear oxygen masks ... Bieber and his father were also “extremely abusive” to a flight attendant ... The incident was the third encounter with law enforcement in recent weeks for Bieber. Also, authorities then boarded the jet, which multiple sources said reeked of marijuana ... no unsmoked weed was found during the search. The flight landed on Friday, which would be 31 January. That's merely two days after he was charged in Toronto. This is relevant because in Bieber's first arrest of driving under the influence, he was found to have THC (a component in marijuana) in his system, and Oxygen Mask-gate is another marijuana incident. Other reliable sources (thanks CyberXRef) include Huffington Post, TIME magazine, Pakistan's Business Recorder, Kansas City's KCTV5 News, etc. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Have tagged the article (as we have in the past about the daily news posts)...we have no need for this kids stuff here (WP:BALASPS) Why Your Obsession With Justin Bieber's Troubles Says More About You Than Him. Need more adults looking over this article please! Will let this news stuff sit for a bit then remove it as its just semi-stories as we did with the pregnancy, sizzurp, marijuana, urinating and stun gun incidents and then fix the section up in a month or so. We are not here to keep a diary of the kid (WP:NOTDIARY),,,,want info of this nature go see tabloids not an encyclopaedia! Sections like this grow like a cancer....need to cut out the dead shit soon. All we need to say is hes had some legal troubles and link to an overall article on the topic (like the one linked above).- Moxy (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, since when did 'brushes / run-ins with the law' become 'kids stuff'? The content currently in the article summarising Bieber's 'past troubles' before his arrests are not 'isolated events', because they are either relevant to what he was arrested for or to demonstrate he had brushes with the law around the world. Now, pregnancy, sizzurp (???) and urinating might be considered tabloid material, but they aren't (really) brushes with the law. Therefore they are not included in the article. Now the stun gun by itself wasn't relevant but the marijuana found with the stun gun is. It's a whole new ball game with vandalism, marijuana and reckless driving. And now yet again we have another incident with marijuana on a plane. The past troubles are a summary of 2012 to 2013 so there's no way that particular paragraph can "grow like a cancer", because there isn't going to be new material from 2012 to 2013. The only paragraph is going to "grow" is the 2014 one, and that is if Bieber keeps breaking the law, or does something relevant to his current arrests / charges (marijuana / assault / driving issues) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As soon as I see an incident name with a -gate on the end, I expect it to be something of far less importance than the the journalist using that term wants us to think it is. That seems to be the case here. There are very few confirmed facts, and definitely no police charges involved. It's trivia, until something more concrete arises from it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not a journalist. I came up with that term and I know not of any journalist who has used it. Methinks you assumed too much. There's NBC News talking to law enforcement sources and a whole lot of other reliable sources reporting it. Whether it's trivial is subjective. It is already relevant because it's marijuana again and the third incident in just nine days. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not been convicted of anything at this point..if so then we have something. This shit has been happening since hes been famous and as in the past its just news fluff that will be removed from the article in time because its not relevant to his job (the reason we have an article). Do people really think only since 2012 there has been legal trouble....this is the norm for famous people....no conviction here at all at this point... a clear BIO violation. Section like this is not what we are looking for at all...as demonstrated by the many policies linked above by many different editors should be removed NOW!!! .Walls of text to jam in info like this is very concerning....so much effort for allegations. On a side note - I hope Starship.paint you dont spend your time adding things like hate or like polls of what random people think to other articles do you? Not a good idea to think that edits like these are constrictive to what we are doing here at the project. Will get others involved when I have more time here ..in the mean time best not to keep adding daily news or random polls for a bit Starship.paint....wait see what happens ...give other's time to reply to the walls of text. RfC may be the best way to get other's involved-- Moxy (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha. They've been thrown around instead of precisely applied. BLP! BLP! BLP! As if I, and the others arguing for the insertion of such content both here and on BLP/N, have not backed ourselves up by citing Wikipedia policy. Just because it's not relevant to his job doesn't mean it should not be included - please read WP:WELLKNOWN. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok so you really believe that "arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for possessing drugs" or a random poll are good additions to this article or any article?. Time to read what others have linked many times now WP:BALASPS, WP:NOTPAPER WP:NOTDIARY, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -- Moxy (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I really believe so. Because opponents somehow keep leaving out the fact that Lil Za wasn't arrested on the streets, he was arrested right in the middle of Bieber's home. Police weren't even purposely looking for Lil Za, they were searching Bieber's home for a felony vandalism case and apparently found drugs in 'plain view' within Bieber's home. Meanwhile the 'random' poll highlights what Americans think of Bieber, which is his public image. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Poll regarding Bieber's image in America

I see my added content regarding Bieber's image in America at the time of May 2013 has been reverted. Here is the content: Back in May 2013, a poll by Public Policy Polling found that Bieber's favorability ratings among Americans were 20% positive and 54% negative, and that he was the only artist in the poll who had a majority unfavorability rating across all party lines, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents. First reverted by Drmies: a poll regarding his image: trivial. we have way too much trivia already I reverted that with might I point out WP:TRIVIAL goes to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Info has reliable sec src. even if there is "too much trivia", why didn't you target the other trivia? Secondly reverted by Moxy WOW just wow horrible grade 2 addiction...this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid. Need more adults looking over this please!! - and Moxy, lay off your "horrible grade 2 addiction" personal attacks, which is further amplified by your insinuation that there is a lack of "adults" here, so what are you calling everyone editing the article now? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I originally added the content to the Style, image and fans section. This content follows WP:WELLKNOWN: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative. Relevant? This is regarding Bieber's public image in America, his country of residence, that's how its relevant. Well documented? Other than the LA Times source I added, it has also been covered by TIME magazine, US News, Huffington Post etc. Noteworthy? Keep in mind, this poll was done in May 2013, even before his arrests. The reliable sources also focused on the information that out of the eight artists (Adele, Bieber, Beyonce, Brown, Jay-Z, Timberlake, Gaga, or Rihanna) only Bieber was 'universally' disliked by a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? Our job is to compile important factual information about our subjects, not to feed the frenzy. From the facts we present our readers can make up heir own minds. We don't need to know what they think. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? So we know what his public image is. That would go in the image section. Is this poll not proof of Bieber's image in America? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But to me it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

See "WP:Unencyclopedic", it is an empty argument. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, can you imagine it being included in Encyclopædia Britannica? HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If the Bieber article in Encyclopædia Britannica had a sub-section for his image, then yes, I think it would be. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: you linked an essay, of which the subject is article deletion. Decisions about what information to include about a notable subject are judged differently. "Unencyclopedic," aka "not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia" is a completely valid rationale. VQuakr (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry VQuakr, was I wrong to link to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, of which "Just unencyclopedic" is a sub-section? It's not that "unencyclopedic" is invalid, it's that there was no justification at all for the argument. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's that there was no justification at all for the argument. If you are going to convince anyone of this, you will need to provide a reason rather than just contradiction. You presented verifiable information (a poll), and other editors (3 so far if you do not count me) noted that it seemed too tabloid-ey. It seems to me that you need to spend a little more time on constructive talk page edits less time on edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I believe I both reverted and discussed. See my above comments at 06:50, 9 February 2014 and 07:00, 9 February 2014. I'm not sure how to argue on "tabloid-ey"ness - I prefer to argue on its relevancy, noteworthiness and documentation - which I have done so above. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The history tab is public; you re-inserted the same content (edit warred) at 6:12 before attempting any discussion. In any case, it sounds like four other editors (counting myself in that group now, having considered it) generally agree that this content should not be included in the article when considering our mandate to write responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. Is an RfC really needed? VQuakr (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at the timeline here. First, Drmies removes my edit on the poll saying rm a poll regarding his image: trivial. we have way too much trivia already Yes, I reverted at 06:12 saying might I point out WP:TRIVIAL goes to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Info has reliable sec src. even if there is "too much trivia", why didn't you target the other trivia? Then, Moxy removes it again, but seeing as there was more opposition, I started a discussion on the talk page. You can demonize me for the single revert I made on 06:12 - all I did was, when Drmies did not link to policy, simply stating trivia, I reverted with the edit summary that WP:TRIVIAL by itself is not a good standalone argument. It's not as if I reverted thrice, and only after that started an issue on the talk page. And why an RfC is needed, it's because Moxy appears to want to remove the whole legal issues section including his charges, not only the content regarding the poll. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The three revert rule is a bright-line limit, not an entitlement. "rm a poll regarding his image: trivial. we have way too much trivia already" is a completely valid edit summary, and you edit warred by putting the edit back in while misquoting the previous edit summary (and making an error regarding where WP:TRIVIAL redirects in the process). In any case, there is a pretty clear consensus not to include this poll, so I suggest we move on. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Time for an RfC on all this shit again. I have removed the section that clearly does not have consensus as seen above. Cant believe for the 10th time we have to do this. Will set this up tommorow so its not done in the middle of the night..as we want experienced editors to comment.-- Moxy (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead with the RfC. I see you have not stopped with your jibes. Would you like your content to be labelled as "all this shit"? And instead of saying adults you tweak to "older editors" / "experienced editors". I dare say experienced editors have already made their comments on this issue. Dr. Blofeld and Werldwayd are two for example. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What you have said does not change the fact many have raised concerns about the content be it they or me calling it "kids stuff" etc... Best we get more involved ...also lets try and keep the walls of text to a minimum. I see that this has been reverted again... O well will just have to wait..concerning that the last RfC on the section is being ignored again. A question Starship.paint .. do you really believe random polls have a place here in reference works (what a encyclopaedia is) -- in other words have other's complained about this on other articles?. -- Moxy (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny you ask for less text but proceed to post a reply longer than my earlier post. Many have raised concerns about the content yes, but also a significant number of editors have come out in support of the content. I don't believe that this particular poll on Bieber is "random", and I think that as long as this article has an specific section on Bieber's image, that poll is relevant and belongs in there. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that the last BLPN on January 3, 2014 got it removed and page locked ...as have all the other BLPN in the past. This fact and the fact many have a concern here again demonstrates to all there is clearly no consensus. Even had a BLPN just on the flag thing.-- Moxy (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of that. So was it a previous BLP/N discussion, or a previous RfC? dame all back again even had a RfC on the section before Might I state my opinion that BLP/N discussions will tend to have numerous proponents of BLP possibly skewing responses. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Might I also point out that during that previous BLP/N discussion on January 3, Bieber had not been arrested even once yet. Now that he has, a lot of his past "troubles" become more relevant and notable. So that previous discussion is unfortunately outdated. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep will have to have a new talk (as has been mentioned many times now)...just would be nice if our editors could follow our basic conduct expectations instead of many edit warning with many others over and over. We should not have to lookup this article so often...ever time he makes the news. The behaviour here is an example of what we dont want to see. How many have to revert before this is clear.... ten more times? This does not look good at all for many -- Moxy (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, judging by your most recent edits to this article, I don't think you have any business getting on a high horse. I'm not sure how I have broken the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - in fact I believe that is exactly what I have done. I also believe that a majority of the article's content is backed by news reports - naturally content will be added when he makes the news. However there's no need to reply - concentrate on your RfC please. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I bet you dont want a reply to that and my few edits. Because we can all see this shit people have causes - There have been reverts almost everyday since the 25th of January by many editors. This behaviour is not what we are looking for in our editors - in fact its embarrassing for us all. Even supporters have a problem with portions of the edits and keep having to fix them over and over and over. Do you really think edit waring in the content that has already been discussed and rejected is a good idea ... most think not and is why we have rules to prevent such things. So will set up an RfC later today getting more involved. Elvis is a great example here... see any shitty news stuff or even a source from the news there....please dont base articles on news stories that are ongoing and will be dead links in 2 weeks time. All we need to say is hes had legal trouble over the past few years ranging from vandalism to DUI charges. Dont need to report the guess work or make the items stand-out in there own section when it can be set in a normal section (again we have policies for this). Also why do we need 8 sources all regurgitating the same thing for one statement... news spam and major link rot to come is again not helpful. -- Moxy (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep alluding that I am guilty of "embarrassing" behavior, but you seem to ignore the fact that you, Moxy, are guilty of multiple reverts yourself. If you weren't, perhaps you would be better positioned to comment. What's more, your edit summaries while removing the content are inflammatory: WOW just wow horrible grade 2 addiction...this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid. Need more adults looking over this please!!) and NO best we "err on the side of caution" Was there any point to the caps lock? Also, perhaps eight sources I needed so people can actually realize how much coverage of Bieber's legal issues are happening in reliable sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:28, 9 February 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:

1. www.religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/26/the-gospel-according-to-justin-bieber/comment-page-2/

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:

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)

Article fully protected

This article has been fully protected for a month. The last time it was fully protected, there was very little discussion. I'd like to hope that this time, given it's locked for a month, there will be some discussion over the topics that have been causing edit wars lately. Whether it be through an RfC, continued discussions here, a straw poll, etc, some consensus' have to be reached. Otherwise, nobody will be editing here until March 10th. Gloss • talk 01:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes best we lock it up for now as there is no dead line for anything. Making a Rfc now...see below in a few minutes. -- Moxy (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Behaviour and legal issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To what extent should we cover Justin Bieber behaviour and legal issues that have been covered by major news media the past few years (as outlined here and here). Secondly should we give the results of polls on what people think of him and the petition to deport Bieber? So what should be included or excluded if anything at all is what we are looking for comments on. Bellow in the quotes can be-found the content that is contested with sources.

1. How much detail should be given to legal problems?
2. Does the legal problems warrant a separate section?
3. Should we include public polls?
4. Should we include the White House deportation petition?

-- Moxy (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Overview

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

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

Policies and essays people have been quoting thus far:

• For inclusion - WP:RS, WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:EFFECT, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC (essay) and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (essay)

• For exclusion - WP:BALASPS, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTDIARY, WP:TRIVIAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Legal problems section

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

On January 23, 2014, Bieber was arrested in Miami Beach, Florida, on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI), driving with an (over six months) expired licence and for resisting arrest without violence. According to police, Bieber was driving a Lamborghini and R&B singer Khalil, who was also arrested, was driving a Ferrari. He was released on a $2,500 bond. 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. On January 29, 2014, Bieber surrendered to Toronto police, who charged him with assaulting a limousine driver in Toronto in December 2013.

---

<content on a public poll, added to the Style, image and fans section>

Back in May 2013, a poll by Public Policy Polling found that Bieber's favorability ratings among Americans were 20% positive and 54% negative, and that he was the only artist in the poll who had a majority unfavorability rating across all party lines, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents.

---

<content on the White House deportation petition, added to the Style, image and fans section>

In late January 2014, Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by a petition created on the White House's website which described Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations (sic) youth" thus calling for Bieber to be deported. The petition attracted over 200,000 signatures, becoming the most popular of all open White House petitions within days.

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

References

Point-by-point survey

To be explicit on what to include and what not to include, I have separated the content (taking into account some of the edit by InedibleHulk) into points. Please post on whether you would support inclusion of each piece of information for the article. If you wish to further trim you have to elaborate. This will be tedious, but it will be very clear. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay since Precision123 missed the point-by-point survey but posted in the "general" survey, I'm moving this whole "Point-by-point survey" section up so people will see it first. I believe I have notified all users who have already posted in this RfC (JimeoWan on fr.wiki) about this starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please post your responses in the Responses to above points section just below the 15th point that Purplewowies created. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

1) Bieber has had several run-ins with the law around the world before his first arrest in 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses to above points

• I say 7, 12, and 13 don't really merit inclusion (unless the latter two have been covered in several sources). The rest I will need to address later. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For 12 and 13, reference 29 above by the Los Angeles Times is one source. Here's other sources by Huffington Post, National Post and CNS News. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• For 7, I think "Lamborghini" and "Ferrari" can go, but his friend Khalil being arrested too is still notable - look at the other incidents involving his friends / entourage. For 8, released on bond is notable but "$2,500" can go. 13 can possibly go, but it's also a point for noteworthiness of the poll. All the rest not mentioned, I support inclusion. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you for breaking this down for us. I agree with @Starship.paint: about 7 and 8. I do not believe 12 or 13 merit inclusion. I am borderline about 3 and 5; I think this would depend on their treatment by reliable secondary sources. I support inclusion for the rest. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Precision123. There is really no doubt about reliable secondary sources for any of these points. For point 3, see reference 5 by BBC, reference 7 (ABC News) and reference 16 (Associated Press). For point 5, see reference 16 again, reference 4 (BBC) and reference 8 (LA Times). Keep in mind, these sources were not written when the incidents happened. They were all written at the time of his first arrest (last month) whereas the incidents have happened from back in 2012, 2013 and nine days before his first arrest. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, @Starship.paint:. In that case I have no problem with inclusion of those. I think the poll is a bit too "recent" (WP:RECENT), and I generally agree with you on the other points mentioned. --Precision123 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry -- this is not how discussions normally occur for BLPs and I decline to play a game here -- the point is that the BLP is so filled with cruft that it became an example to the world of what not to have in a BLP. Cheers -- but do not expect me to contribute to the "wall of text" discussion now or ever. Collect (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree this tabloid stuff and random polls is not what a real adult encyclopaedia would have. But there is not much we can do here as the younger people interested in him come from a generation of celebrity news. Lucky for Elvis he was around long before daily celeb news....he had much worst with legal problems, drugs and the ladies...but at the time news did not care...there was no TMZ to follow him around all day. Just imagen the section that could be on MJ and his drug problems. Its discouraging to say the least that we have editors that push for this stuff but al least the majority thus far see the random polls are BS.-- Moxy (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Moxy, please stop with the "real adult encyclopaedia" shtick. Thanks. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

13 is especially meaningless. 7 is trivial. 12 has some significance. The rest seem ok.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just to summarize our views, here are the ones that look like they are not getting support for inclusion: 7 (except for maybe what @Starship.paint: proposed to salvage) & 13. Points 8 & 12 have a minimal/mixed level of support for inclusion; it looks like most people do not feel too strongly one way or the other. So we can continue from there. --Precision123 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Since this is a bio, I don't see the relevance of including a detailed chronological order of events which are better suited in a tabloid rather than on WP. Maybe a paragraph summarizing the highlights of his top most newsworthy escapades, but I wouldn't go into detail. Reserve his pages for life changing events, and things that actually have meaning in defining who he is as a talent. Atsme (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, it's already a summary. The least notable brushes with the law have already been omitted, these are the most notable ones. He's really done much more "controversial" stuff than is being discussed here. Also, what's wrong with chronological? His musical career is certainly chronological. Points 2-3-4 above are not chronological. 5-11 are chronological because many legal issues have cropped up within roughly 14-16 days. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

General survey

If you are a new commenter to this RfC, please also read the Point-by-point survey section above and post your opinion in the Responses to above points section for further clarity.

• Minor inclusion Just need to mention hes had some trouble with a link (source) that list all the incidents. No need to regurgitate news guess work or mention specifics till courts has resolved the problems. All the above info is just overwhelming (undue weight). No need for info on polls and the like. -- Moxy (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Separate section for legal troubles, minimal coverage of the rest. The legal issues are very much in the news and covered by many reliable sources. Polling maybe deserves a passing mention but not its own section. The deportation petition should be referenced only insofar as reliable sources discuss it. Andrew³²⁷ 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - I believe most of the content should be included. I think the past troubles paragraph should remain untouched, will explain below. The next paragraph on what he has been charged with is to be mentioned with the utmost priority, but that paragraph itself could do with a little bit of trimming (Lamborghini). I'm open to some trimming for the poll and petition but I definitely think they should be included in the article within the Style image and fans section. No opinion yet on whether a separate legal section is needed. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support the stuff that attracts police or government attention, Oppose the stuff that merely gets the "little people" fired up. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above. Its finding a balance. You can't ignore the legal problems but we also don't want to list every trivial offence. A separate section is definitely appropriate and gleaning the basics.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Remove most as not being encyclopedic. Wikipedia should not be a tabloid, and should not be used in furtherance of any crusade against any living person - the task is to write articles that a person far removed from the National Enquirer will see as being neutrally sourced and worded. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize some of the more notable antics, give a few examples, and then let it go. We're not going to bullet-list every down & dirty thing a spoiled celebrity does. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of current Legal issues section, as nearly everything is relevant to the most notable event (the DUI arrest), as has been explained in above sections and abides by WP:WELLKNOWN. If anything must be removed we should have consensus for it, and not just axe the whole paragraph like some have tried to do before. However, the poll/petition can be cut out as it is general trivia and unencyclopedic. That is, unless the petition actually results in his deportation. STATic message me! 14:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of the legal issues as a distinct section in "Personal life", and support moving "Style, image and fans" below "Personal life", as Bieber's legal problems are particularly relevant in the way it impacts his image to the public. If Bieber ends up with a lot of legal stories, might change my view to Summarize. Also support the mention of the petition through a simple paragraph, and maybe a brief mention of polls to give it more context. Bieber has a very polarized image which would be better understood thanks to all this information. --JimeoWan (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion – most of his legal issues that are well known and can be easily verifiable under an appropriate section under "Personal life". We don't need to dive into too much detail for each issue, but they need a mention. Additionally some things such as the polling do deserve at least a passing mention. As per some of the suggestions above, the later part of the “Style, image and fans” is tightly linked to his legal issues. It could enjoy a slight reorganization, perhaps moved some of it to that legal issues section. --CyberXRef^☎ 06:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - particularly his legal problems. I also support giving enough credit in his Wikipedia article to the petition and campaign for his extradition from the States and revoking of his green card / residency. Even the earlier smaller incidents were a clear signal and prelude for his big legal problems in USA and in Canada. Other artists have been in more minimal controversy, an odd media declaration here or there, and we have covered it. Here we have a case of massive media coverage and we are still discussing whether to include them, particularly the case of the petition that garnered tens of thousands of signatures and has reached the White House after fulfilling the 100,000 threshold? We are just being over-sensitive and over-protective of an artist who is now in a downward spiral and ever-deepening problems with the law. These are significant enough to put his whole artistic future in jeopardy, even him threatening to stop his career... so they are very significant. Polls better be left out though. This is not a matter of personal opinions of fans or opponents for that matter. By the way, I have great sympathy for the artist and have been following his output for a very long time now. werldwayd (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion Everything that is currently in the legal issues section MINUS the poll as it is trivial. The other information is backed up by reliable sources, and has undergone ongoing notability. As I have said in the BLP noticeboard if you want to disinclude this section then where should be a wikipedia-wide consensus on how we deal with legal issues in BLP articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Remove most. The thrust of an article should be what the person is notable for. He's a musician and and that's what we want to cover, mostly. His personal life is peripheral to that, and to the extent we cover it, we want stuff like his background that contributed to his craft. Per WP:BLP we want to go very light on including material that is deprecatory, especially if it's trivial as it mostly is here. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR overrides what is written in WP:BLP as these core wikipedia policies are what makes up the BLP policy. The fact is that his legal issues have the widespread coverage to pass WP:N Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• What an interesting claim. WP:NPOV also mandates removal of the cruft here, as does WP:BLP. WP:N is not relevant here -- it is specifically about whether a topic is notable enough for its own article, and has nothing to do with the weight given a topic in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that "The thrust of an article should be what the person is notable for." However in this case Bieber is a notable musician within a targeted age group. His notability as this type of musician makes his behaviour extremely notable to everyone else which is why the media cover his actions in such detail compared to most other "artists". If it makes the news for any length of time it has to be notable enough for inclusion. Wayne (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I would argue that this is exactly what is being done. It's already a summary of reliable sources. Not every "gossipy" and controversial issue is mentioned. The minor and unnotable ones have already been deleted before this RfC existed. It's like you're asking for a summary of a summary. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 22:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• All we need to say is " hes had legal trouble over the past few years ranging from vandalism to DUI charges". We dont need to mention details that are still being reported and in the court process. We aslo dont need to mention what others are doing because of him like petition and/or poll results or what his friends have been involved in. -- Moxy (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Every charge should be mentioned. "What others are doing because of him" is relevant to Bieber's public image. "what his friends have been involved in" - Khalil was arrested together with Bieber during the DUI charge. Lil Za was arrested in Bieber's own home for possessing drugs. Bieber's entourage was found to have marijuana in Sweden - ties in with the first arrest of Bieber having THC in his system, a component of marijuana. Recently Bieber and his entourage was reported to be smoking marijuana on a plane by NBC News - his entourage is clearly significant to his problems. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• IMHO, the key thing is to remember that we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. What goes in the article now is what would be significant to the reader 10–20 years from now. Should his legal troubles be covered in depth? For his sake, I hope not. I hope it'll be sufficient to have a sentence or two, along the lines of what Moxy said above. In the worst case hypothetical speculation, the current charges might only be a sentence or two in a hypothetical future section about some major incident leading to his hypothetical future jailing/deportation/etc. So, in a sense, it's too early to say that his current legal issues are that significant.

Likewise, I think the petition is only a temporary thing, and nothing will come of it. It's interesting, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of interesting facts. It might be worth mentioning the petition and the polls in one sentence in the section on public image/perception, but I don't think it warrants a lot of coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I really think his current legal troubles will remain important in his long-term biography. Polling and petitions won't and only deserve passing mention. However, he has had so many legal problems in different places that they are an important part of his life. It's important that only reliable sources be used, but his problems have been in the Washington Post, New York Times, etc. Andrew³²⁷ 06:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your The deportation petition should be referenced only insofar as reliable sources discuss it. comment in the Survey section above, there's Reuters, CNN, The Independent and MarketWatch already cited. If you are not satisfied with those, how about Forbes, TIME, ABC News, CNN News and Toronto Sun? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• My 2c as someone who is not remotely interested in his music. Regarding the above...Legal problems section - first paragraph is ok but the second paragraph is too detailed...the first and last sentences should be adequate cover. Regarding the Public poll section - It's trivia and should be deleted. I see no real problem with the Public White House deportation petition section although maybe it doesn't deserve it's own section. Why not just add it to the end of the Legal problems section? Wayne (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The poll and petition aren't meant to have their own sections. There is a "Style, image and fans" section in the article, and I believe both the poll and the petition should go in there, because both are relevant to his image or perception. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to edit the titles in the grey boxes to make it more apparent. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• First I'd like to state that all content here is reliably sourced, there should be no question about that. Now, going to get the poll and the petition out of the way first. Both are relevant to his public image. An image section exists in the article. This should go in there. Bonus points for noteworthiness - his poll revealed he was the only artiste surveyed disliked across party lines, while the petition was the most popular open one on the White House website. I'll understand if people would want to trim the poll and the petition, but strongly disagree on removing them altogether.
• I'll be very surprised if anyone actually wants to take out the information on what he's been charged for out of the article (vandalism, DUI, driving with an (over six months) expired licence and for resisting arrest without violence, assault) - this is the most "serious" information on what's he's done. A little trimming is okay - Lamborghini, Ferrari and $2500 can go. So can "surrendered to Toronto police" instead you can replace with 'Toronto police charged him with...' is fine. But, other info is important. Khalil arrested together with Bieber is significant because Bieber's friends / entourage has caused him problems in the past (more on that in next para). THC and Xanax are important so we can clarify what he was DUI for.
• Past troubles - one isolated "controversial" incident probably is not noteworthy. Problem is that Bieber has been involved in a series of unsavoury incidents even before his first arrest - a pattern can probably be discerned. In this CTV source alone, a timeline is described where Bieber on average is involved in more than one incident per month in 2013 itself, while there were still incidents in 2011 and 2012 also. That's why you have reliable sources saying his first arrest is 'more culmination than aberration'. Instead of mentioning every past incident, this past troubles paragraph is already a summary, it actually mentions only four "types" of incidents, which were either related to his first arrest or backs up "run-ins with the law around the world ". Less serious incidents like urinating, Anne Frank a Belieber or lawsuits where he wasn't charged were not included. You have him charged for vandalism in Brazil, then his graffiti in Australia and Colombia become more notable. A pattern. His neighbours have accused / confronted him regarding reckless driving / speeding at least thrice, this is relevant to his first arrest of a driving offence. The tour bus raids in two countries turn up marijuana (relevant to Bieber's first arrest too) but mainly condemn his friends / entourage. Lil Za arrested in Bieber's home for drug possession also reflects on Bieber's friends / entourage. Meanwhile, Bieber's friend Khalil was arrested with Bieber in his first arrest. Another pattern. This info needs to be made apparent to the public, they can draw their own conclusions from there. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I find walls of text to be off-putting, and a sign that the desire is to show how bad a person is. See User:Collect/BLP for examples of what a prior editor tried to do with BLPs, and which I fear may be the case here. That editor finally got removed as a sock master, by the way, but wrought havoc for years. Collect (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

<really, really slanted eyes> pretty toxic insinuation, eh? That's really a low blow. Also, there are simply walls of text because there is lots to argue and substantiate. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

More than 60% of this discussion is from one editor. 40% is from 5 editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Starship.paint can you trim back the rants a bit...this is the type of thing that makes people not want to comment or just ignore your comments all together - we want every one to have their views hear and read..even yours!! - Moxy (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest; probably 80% if not more of the content of the grey boxes was contributed by yours truly. Naturally I will be the most voracious in defending it. So instead of rebutting 60% of the arguments here, let's broadly describe it as off-putting and then ignore it. Collect, you've already had two replies in this threaded discussion and both times you'd rather attack me than attack my arguments. Broadly dismissing my arguments seems to be a speciality of yours. How funny that Moxy too will reply - I know my content has had substantial opposition to it, but only two editors have used pseudo-personal attacks against me. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This went way over your head,,,,,people are trying to explain that long walls of text and replying to everyone personally in depth does not help your case. Why because people will simply skip over your stuff if they think your just ranting. As you can see below your wall of text has already confused people because your talking about stuff and making associations that no one else is. Moxy (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• An encyclopedia is neither a police blotter nor a remote outpost of the TMZ empire. I loathe this joker as much as the next guy, but people who think "Oxygen Mask-gate" is legitimate BLP content need a bit of quiet self-reflection in a corner. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And being an encyclopedia we must present information in a well-rounded and neutral point of view manner. Mr Bieber's legal troubles are not an obscure subject, they are well-known, notable, and highly verifiable. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, they are not even mentioned. I am not looking to fight WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS, but some stuff is simply not going away. Mr Bieber is a celebrity – an actor and a singer-songwriter; third-most powerful celebrity in the world in 2012 according to Forbes. His legal troubles and public opinion is an important aspect of his personal life that needs to be described. We don't have to dig our every little issue, but we can't simply ignore his legal issues either. I think a section presenting that information is appropriate. We don't need to dive into anything too specific and some things should only have a passing mention. I don't think that's too unreasonable. - CyberXRef^☎ 06:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think we should further clarify this RfC as to the exact incidents which should remain in the BLP. Otherwise the comments above will not/cannot be interpreted clearly. We should itemise the questions according to each incident. Something like "Does the reaction of the neighbours stay or go?", "Does the maskgate remain or not?" "Is Lil Za to be included"? Otherwise even if we reach some sort of consensus, it will not be clear enough. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree now that the wall of text above is making links to behaviour and association of people. The original point was to talk about the above in quotes that keeps being reverted back and forth.,,but your right if we are going down the path of what may look like synthesis to many we need to talk about how and what associations are correct. -- Moxy (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No objection to what Dr.K. proposed. Also, let's include Mask-gate in it too. I'll see if I can write and reference it up in the next 24 hours. But, if we do carry out Dr.K's proposal, all previous editors who have commented should be asked to re-comment again. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

TO be clear you think much more should be added about this right...best you make a list - here because we are not going to do this all the time ...he makes the news everyday (even today). Best you make up a list of all the things you think we want to read about and add it below...no guess work on associations or made up tittles pls -- Moxy (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There's only one thing I want to add. Everything before 2014 is covered already. It was reported that during a private flight two days after his assault charge, Bieber, his father and entourage filled the plane with so much marijuana smoke that that the pilots had to don oxygen masks.

We don't do reflists on talk pages. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's it for now, baring future incidents. The content goes into the end of the second legal troubles paragraph.

starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• If we decide to move forward, we have to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. It's currently a total mess. --CyberXRef^☎ 06:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to separate it sentence-by-sentence / point-by-point and have people "vote" include or discard, it's going to be very tedious. There are at least 18 points, I believe. It's tedious for those who don't swing "mostly keep" or "mostly discard", anyway. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, using words like "mostly", (which BTW are also weasel words, although I know, this is not an article, but still), invites trouble at the end of the RfC when editors won't agree on what "mostly" means, leading to yet another RfC to clarify that. Not a good prospect. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Rounding up

The article has been unprotected. I think it's enough time now. It's time to bring the RfC to a conclusion. I will summarize the results of the point-by-point survey and the general survey.
For the general survey, 18 editors offered their input: (Moxy, starship.paint, Andrew327, InedibleHulk, Dr. Blofeld, Collect, Tarc, STATic, JimeoWan, CyberXRef, werldwayd, Knowledgekid87, Herostratus, Purplewowies, Precision123, Sportfan5000, Abhayakara, Wayne). Simply put, those in opposition appear to be outnumbered (5) by those in favour (13).

• Leaning include most (7): starship.paint, Dr. Blofeld, JimeoWan, CyberXRef, werldwayd, Purplewowies, Precision123
• Leaning include legal issues (5): Andrew327, InedibleHulk, STATic, Knowledgekid87, Sportfan5000
• Didn't vote, appears to be leaning towards include (1): Wayne
• Leaning remove most (4) or summarise (1): Moxy, Collect, Herostratus, Abhayakara and Tarc.
  

The point-by-point survey was opened on 14 February and was eight editors participated ( Purplewowies, starship.paint, Precision123, Serialjoepsycho, JimeoWan, Andrew327, werldwayd and Abhayakara) offered their detailed input. Five other editors participated (Collect, Moxy, Atsme, Dr. Blofeld, Sportfan5000) but did not offer detailed input. Here are the results, I will be listing who has opposed which point:

• 1 -> Abhayakara
• 2 -> werldwayd (trim), Abhayakara (borderline/BL)
• 3 -> JimeoWan (BL), Abhayakara
• 4 -> werldwayd, Abhayakara
• 5 -> Abhayakara
• 7 -> purplewowies, starship.paint (trim), Precision123 (trim), serialjoepsycho, JimeoWan (BL), werldwayd (trim), Abhayakara (BL)
• 8 -> starship.paint (trim), Precision123 (trim)
• 9 -> JimeoWan (BL)
• 11 -> JimeoWan (BL), werldwayd, Abhayakara, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
• 12 -> Purplewowies (unless RS found), Precision123, werldwayd, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
• 13 -> Purplewowies (unless RS found), Precision123, Abhayakara, serialjoepsycho, JimeoWan (BL), werldwayd, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
• 14 -> JimeoWan, werldwayd (trim), Abhayakara, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
• 15 ->Abhayakara, Andrew327 (unless RS found)
  

Firstly I'd like to reassure all editors that for every single point there are reliable sources out there, so Andrew327 and Purplewowies can rest assured that if the point is added to the article, so will the reliable source. Points that met substantial opposition (after taking into account RS present) were 7 (7/8), 11 (3/8), 13 (4/8) and 14 (3/8). The rest of the points were objected to by 2/8 or less. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, based on the results, I thereby propose: Point 7 is trimmed to "R&B singer Khalil was also arrested". Point 13 is to be deleted. Point 14 is to be trimmed by "Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by". Not sure about Point 11, it might not be able to be trimmed. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't really proper for an RfC participant (and major contributor to the article itself) to attempt to summarize a discussion such as this; leave it to the eventual closer of the RfC, who will be a neutral, involved 3rd party. You have an obvious desire for a certain outcome here and that POV can seep through here, even if unintentional. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay fine, I was unaware because this is pretty much my first participation in an RfC. So who is coming to close this RfC? It's been open for more than a month. I merely did so because there was apparently no conclusion to all the discussion. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 22:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jack Whitehall

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

No, I don't think there's any need to post a poll. — Xiong熊talk*

Justin Bieber in popular culture

FYI - there's this: Justin Bieber in popular culture. Merge? AfD? Talk amongst yourselves, as I slowly walk away pretending I am not involved in anything Bieber-related ;) -- Y not? 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominated it for AfD. Someone has previously tried having it deleted but they were reverted so an AfD discussion should take care of it. Gloss • talk 06:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Twitter

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

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

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

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, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

...duly noted. Thank you. LazyBastardGuy 20:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Legal Issue citation overkill

In the Legal issues section, there are 2 sentences that have 8 references a piece. Per WP:OVERCITE, could we trim this down? LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. 2 is generally fully sufficient for any claim. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

While that's what would generally be acceptable, there is so much dispute/edit war over this crap, a few more is definitely not WP:OVERCITE; especially in this circumstance. --CyberXRef^☎ 21:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure each claim only had about 2-3 references originally. Some editors removed some content and left the references in, so the references piled up to 8 and then the article was locked, that's why there's overkill now. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, do you feel the "vomit" bit belongs in a BLP? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on 22 February 2014

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

The template change which caused major breakage across articles has been fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of new category

Why doesn't this article is not included in the Category:Internet celebrities?--Joseph 09:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation of people has many problems - his current notability may have been sparked by some Internet videos, but his primary notability is as an entertainer in traditional venues, and not just the Internet. If we listed everyone who has been on the Internet in any presentation, we would have just about everyone in that group, including Queen Elizabeth II. Collect (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Berkley was my Queen of the Internet for a while. I'm sure I wasn't the only one tying up the phone line. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Article feedback

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

RIAA Diamond Award

The BLP currently says Bieber did not get a RIAA Diamond award -- which would be news to the RIAA [5]. Dunno how the weird blurb for Psy and Gangnam got into this BLP (he has no RIAA Diamond award per RIAA official site), but it well ought to be removed. Collect (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Collect. It appears it came from this edit in November (by an editor who in the past had been warned about adding false certifications to articles). Is there any objection to me editing through the full protection to remove it? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And give Bieber the award which he actually did get as well <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No objection. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks all. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs a "Criticism" section

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

Please note that Wikipedia has specific policies regarding biographies, and something "being all over the media" is not one of the chief criteria. Collect (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nguyễn Quốc Việt: - whether to include such information is already being debated on this very page at this section within the RfC above, but we're not exactly starting a whole criticism section, his legal problems go under his personal life. Other views on his image so under the image section. Maybe you could respond as to what you would like included? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems appropriate for the "Style, image and fans" section. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No BLP, and likely no biography should have a criticism section, notable criticism should be appropriately placed in the sections where it belongs. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

My bad

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

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)

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)