Talk:Justin Bieber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Justin Bieber was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Music (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.
 
WikiProject Pop music (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject R&B and Soul Music (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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. — Xiongtalk*

DUI court case conclusion

Here we go again, Collect? This section is to discuss my addition and Collect's revert to the article here.

  • Firstly, I'd like to address what Collect terms as massive over-citation, which is just three references for one paragraph. The Reuters reference does not cover the whole paragraph, which is why the other two references are needed. Reuters does not mention the name of the charity (Our Kids), or that the $50,000 donation (requested by prosecutors) was not legally binding and was done before the sentencing but the CNN reference does. Reuters also does not mention the $500 fine, but the Associated Press reference does.
  • Secondly, Collect removed some reliably sourced information which I felt was vital to telling the whole story. In January, Bieber was charged with 1) DUI 2) driving with expired license 3) resisting arrest w/o violence. In August, they dropped charges 1) due to the plea deal and 2) because he proved he did have a license. No idea why Collect removed this info. People are going to read and think, what happened to the initial charges? They are loose ends if you have it Collect's way. So, your move, Collect. starship.paint ~ regal 02:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We are talking multiple refs for simple statements of fact, the use of a lengthy discussion about a minor event in Bieber's life, and the desire to give massive overweight thereto. Sticking to the facts is what Wikipedia does best, and adding material like "he was charged with having no license but he showed he did have a license" is of such trivial tabloid weight as to be offensive to WP:BLP. And using duplicating sources is "allowed" but silly. By the way, using article talk pages to make personal charges about other editors is against the guidelines, but this is usual for you, I fear. Collect (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is Bieber's BLP, not the place to "tie loose ends" or to add minute details of judicial incidents. I agree with Collect. Also I find that using a user's name six times in a posting is rather excessive and intrudes into personal territory. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a content (and reference) dispute that arose from my addition and Collect's reversion. Please don't try to twist it a personal attack or personal charge or whatever. That in itself might be a personal charge, hmm?
  • We are talking multiple refs for simple statements of fact -> have you understood my earlier post? Reuters does not cover every one of these simple statements of fact. Not Our Kids, not the $500 fine nor the non-legally binding nature of the donation, which Collect even alluded to during an edit summary. To remove 2/3 references for this paragraph goes against WP:V as there is now unsourced information in the article.
  • adding material like "he was charged with having no license but he showed he did have a license" is of such trivial tabloid weight as to be offensive to WP:BLP -> I assert that this is a prime example of sticking to the facts. He was originally charged with something during arrest. Later, two charges were dropped during sentencing. The reliable sources (not tabloids) tell us exactly why it happened. We should include it, or readers won't know what happened to the charges which we mentioned earlier in the article! Collect's reversion removed all mention of dropped charges during the sentencing, despite the reliable source coverage. starship.paint ~ regal 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You note on your revert that "this has been discussed two days". I would note that under WP:BLP the onus is on you to gain consensus for this material, and thus it must be removed unless and until you obtain such a consensus. So far only one editor supports the "bold edit" and two clearly oppose that addition. This does not appear to be a "consensus" for repeated addition of the material in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I still agree with Collect and I also note that coverage by RS does not automatically necessitate inclusion of this material in a BLP. In fact, as I said before, insertion of minute details about Bieber's legal problems would be WP:UNDUE. This is Bieber's bio, not a minutely detailed account of the procedural details of his legal troubles. As far as This is a content (and reference) dispute that arose from my addition and Collect's reversion. Please don't try to twist it a personal attack or personal charge or whatever. In your original post, you mentioned Collect's name 6 (six) times. By any measure that's excessive (and annoying) and as I said before verges into personal territory by force of sheer repetition of his name. So, no twist on my part. Just the facts. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Number of times name mentioned? -> fact. Whether a personal charge? -> opinion. Anyway, WP:consensus is built through strength of arguments, not 2 > 1. Both of you have not even acknowledged the point about the need for multiple references for WP:V in this case bcause Reuters cannot cover the whole paragraph.
  • Bieber's bio is both exactly and the only place to discuss his legal troubles. His legal troubles are a part of his biography. Here's an analogy. Imagine that an article states that 3 men (A, B, C) begin walking from Germany to France. The journey is not mentioned, but at the end, 2 men (B, D) arrive in France. It is never mentioned what happened to A or C during the journey, neither is it mentioned that D is the younger brother of A who replaced him during the journey. This is exactly what happens in the article. A, B, C are the initial charges during arrest. C (driving with expired license) vanishes with no explanation. A (DUI) was replaced by the lesser charge D (careless driving) is also not mentioned. This creates questions in readers' minds. He pleaded guilty to B and D, but what happened to charges A and C? Did he plead not guilty? Were the charges dropped? Why? Readers won't know, because the article won't tell you. starship.paint ~ regal 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
See WP:CONSENSUS and abide by it please. At this point you do not form a "majority of one" here, and it is clear that, absent a bunch of others weighing in, your position does not form a consensus here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Inviting more input

This discussion is to discuss this edit. Should the removed information be added back to the article ->

  1. Given that the Reuters source cannot adequately cover all the information in the paragraph of the DUI case conclusion ... per WP:VERIFY, should we also cite the available CNN and the Associated Press sources? (Reuters source, CNN source, the Associated Press source
  2. Given that the article does mention that Bieber was originally charged during arrest with DUI and driving with an expired license, and that the paragraph of the DUI case conclusion does not mention either of these charges ... should we mention that these two charges were dropped by the conclusion of the trial?
  3. Should we also explain why the charges were dropped, as according to the reliable sources? (produced a valid license + DUI dropped for lesser charges through plea bargain)
  • I support both 1, 2 and 3. My arguments are in the above section. starship.paint ~ regal 09:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Regal, the information removed from the paragraph is properly sourced, but in my opinion it is either not relevant enough (which court) or can be implied, (he was not convicted for DUI because there was a plea bargain). I think less is more. To me, the current wording for the paragraph is more suited for an encyclopedia. As it is currently written, it seems properly sourced by the Reuters reference. The only problem I saw is that if it was read as it was previously worded "Before the sentencing, Bieber made a $50,000 contribution..." It could be interpreted that he took that decision freely out of regret or to gain sympathy, etc. but according to the cited source, it was part of the plea bargain. I took the liberty to correct it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: - if you say that the Reuters reference is adequate, I challenge you to find a mention of the $500 fine or Our Kids or the fact that while the $50,000 was part of the plea bargain, it was not legally binding and could not legally be part of the sentence meted out by the court, which was why it had to be done before the sentencing. The paragraph as it is now misleads readers into thinking that a charitable contribution could legally be part of a sentence meted out by the court. If you can't find any mention, it's because one source is not enough! starship.paint ~ regal 00:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I think whether the contribution was part of the sentence or, as it was the case, could not be included in the sentence and had to be done before, is a technical detail. It was part of the plea bargain. How it was instrumented can be read by following the source's link. However, I do agree with you that the paragraph as it is written lacks sourcing. I think that the $500 fine is important and needs to stay and be sourced. Knowing the name of the charity, to me personally is not as important, but I see no harm in keeping it, so, if it is not removed, it should also be sourced. I would change the Reuters source for the Associated press source (the only one that includes details about the $500 fee) and add the CNN source (its the only one that mentions the name of the charity). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: OK. I'll make the changes soon. I'll like to reply to an earlier point you made. While the DUI was dropped as part of the plea bargain, there was one more charge - driving w/o expired license. It was dropped not because of the plea bargain, but because he proved he had a valid license. Therefore, Bieber was innocent of this charge, we don't even mention it? starship.paint ~ regal 04:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Starship.paint:; In my opinion it is not relevant enough to be included. He did have a valid license; He just did not have it on him when he was stopped. It is the same case as if anybody else gets stopped by police, forgets their current license and are given some days to present it. It's much less notable than a DUI charge, and in my very personal opinion it's not worth including. What do you think?. Maybe other editors want to comment. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon - I think you will find that interest in Bieber is apparently not that high among "serious editors", apart from some editors who seem to me to be quite protective of the article as a WP:BLP. About the license, I don't think we should consider it "by itself". It's a triple charge during his arrest, wouldn't make sense to go and remove the original charge during the arrest. It's not as if the reliable sources failed to report about this charge, they thought it was notable enough. starship.paint ~ regal 13:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: - To me, it's a balancing act between completeness and synthesis. As you know my personal view is that less is more. I do understand your point, my very personal view is that completeness of the information can be sacrificed in this case and that we can leave that less relevant detail out. I must confess that the level of interest that this article raises amongst wikipedians does not surprise me ;) . With this comment, I myself pass on the torch to other editors. But if you need my help with any article don't hesitate to contact me.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well said: Less is more. I agree. We don't have to convert this BLP into a detailed legal process whodunit. Thank you Crystallizedcarbon. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Toronto assault

Let's discuss this apparently massive BOLD edit by me. Take at a look at the differences. In Collect's version, information about "8 September" is placed in a paragraph about his legal issues in January 2014. In my version, I moved the information about "8 September" to the paragraph about his legal issues in September 2014. I state that the original charge was in January 29 (this information was already present in the article before Collect's own BOLD edit on 9 September). I replace the words "limousine incident" with "incident with a limousine driver", because "limousine incident" sounds like a car accident and that doesn't go well with assault (assaulting a limousine??). Also, I restored one archived source from January 2014 (already present in the article before Collect's own BOLD edit on 9 September). And, I replaced the unfully formatted Guardian reference added by Collect with a CBC reference with archiveurl and full formatting. If you read the Guardian vs CBC, you'll see that the CBC reference is more detailed. Oh yes, I changed the MOSDATE -> "8 September" to September 8. starship.paint ~ regal 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at the absurd section which already devotes two sections to the egg incident, and where your proposed edit clearly implies that Bieber committed an assault - where the Reuters story does not even state that an assault was a matter of fact in Toronto. Cheers -- but this insistence on covering every "allegation" and "rumour" in duplicate in the BLP is an affront to every editor who has an understanding of what the policy exists. BTW, the "Guardian" is actually Reuters, one of the major wire services. And RS by most accounts. And your change of a date does NOT change the WP:BRD requirements - it is gnomework at best. Sorry if I offended Bieber by using UK/Canadian date usage - I had not known he was a US citizen at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
One of Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas, California accused Bieber of throwing eggs at his home on January 9, 2014 and causing thousands of dollars of damage.[102][145][146]
On July 9, 2014, Bieber was charged with one misdemeanor count of vandalism in California for throwing eggs at his Calabasas neighbour's home in January.[146][154][155] Police earlier claimed that they had video footage of Bieber high-fiving friends after the eggs were thrown.[146][156] With Bieber pleading no contest to the charge, the Los Angeles County Superior Court sentenced him on July 9 to pay US$80,900 in restitution, serve two years' probation, complete twelve weeks of anger management and five days of community service in what the district attorney termed a negotiated settlement. Bieber had moved to Beverly Hills, California after the incident.[146][154][155]
On January 23, 2014, Bieber was arrested in Miami Beach, Florida together with singer Khalil, on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI), driving with an over six month expired licence and resisting arrest without violence.[147][148][149] Police said that Bieber told authorities he had consumed alcohol, smoked marijuana and taken prescription drugs.[102] Bieber was released on a $2,500 bond.[150] A toxicology report revealed that Bieber had THC (a principal constituent of cannabis) and the anti-anxiety medication Xanax in his system at the time of his arrest.[151][152]
On August 13, 2014, the January DUI case was settled with a plea bargain. Bieber pled guilty to resisting an officer without violence and a lesser charge of driving without due care and attention. Bieber was fined $500 and sentenced to attend both a 12-hour anger management course and a program that teaches about the impact of drunken driving on victims. Also as part of the plea bargain, Bieber made a $50,000 contribution to Our Kids, a local children's charity.[157][158]
Anyone notice a pattern here about how we handle allegations about Bieber? Like covering minor events in duplicate? Collect (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello? Let's not sidetrack ourselves here. If you want to debate the whole section we can do it after this point. Did you actually read my latest edit which I linked above as "this"? To help you, here it is again. Please compare "On 8 September, Toronto dropped an assault charge against Bieber stemming from a limousine incident in December 2013." [September Guardian/Reuters reference] to "On September 8, Toronto dropped an assault charge against Bieber originally brought up in January 29 for an incident with a limousine driver in December 2013." [January Reuters reference][September CBC reference] Honestly, I don't think you've even read my changes properly before reverting. starship.paint ~ regal 13:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Snark? I rather think the Reuters source uses UK/Canadian date formats - which I suppose is wrong as Bieber is an American citizen now? Cheers. I do not regard that as being a significant cavil since I was apparently ignorant of Bieber's citizenship. Collect (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do you keep talking about the MOSDATE and ignoring all my other arguments? You're focusing on the most trivial issue here and zero acknowledgment of any of my other arguments. Anyway, all the other MOSDATES in the legal issues section are MDY. In fact, I'm skimming through the career section and the MOSDATES seems to be mdy as well. starship.paint ~ regal 14:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The big issue is the massive OVERWEIGHT given to minor events (dropped charges on the basis that the crime may not have even occurred is pretty clearly not something where we should in any way imply he "got off" at all -- yet the edit proposed does just that, and the other "stuff" which gets mentioned twice in a section is so absurdly past due weight as to be risible. ) As for the date bit -- I responded to your mention of it, which I suppose from your last post you did not intend to stress - but did? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You know what, I don't care about the dates. The article is using mdy now. If you want to change it to dmy, go ahead, as long as the article's dates are standardized.. Please read the diff of my latest edit and edit summary. There is no semblance of POV pushing now. The (+500) is because I've changed one simple reference to two detailed, archived references.starship.paint ~ regal 14:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)