Talk:Rihanna/Archive 2

she is not a Songwriter and she is not a video director

Who has written that Rihanna is a songwriter has done a mistake she hasn't written anything , this a thing enough famous that all her album has been written by others artists!and than she is not a video director just because she has helped the director of disturbia in some scenes!SHE IS NOT ALSO A MUSIC DIRECTOR

What about "Break it Off"? Buy 'A Girl Like Me' and have a look at the credits. And I think she also co-wrote some songs on 'Music of the Sun' & 'A Girl Like Me'. --It's Flo (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Working With a Strange Song-Writter

Rumors say she collaborated with a strange song-writter name's RJ. they say they met in Myspace and in RJ's profile Rihanna is his best Friend. you dont believe me go and checkout his profile: http://www.myspace.com/myrjmusic

Strange Songwritter Asked Forgivness To Rihanna

a week ago on, march 04 2009, the strange songwitter (RJ) felt sorry about Rihanna's hospitalization and asked forgiveness that he forgot to call her. this is her message that he left in Rihanna's Myspace profile:
I cant believe it. i'm so sorry that i forget about you. i still can't believe it. please forgive me and take care.
i have the best wishes for you.
with all my love.
RJ
you still say he didn't work with her? i think you're still in the dark.

SOS actual UK chart position.

To whoever wrote that it went to #1 in the UK, that is incorrect. It has so far only been to #2. The #1 position is for the entire European chart, not the UK one. The reference article from Teenmusic stated that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.120.212 (talk • contribs)

Bring it on:all or nothing

How about her part in the movie, Bring it on:all or nothing theres nothing about it. Im not sure if it is a cameo since a cameo role is usually shorter.

Pls add DIRECT LINK 2 her SU&D song

In the music section, pls add the direct link [ "Shut Up and Drive" (Rihanna song) ] 2 her song SU&D so it doesnt go 2 the disamb page.

UK charts

"and reached position #2 in .....the UK Singles Chart due to considerable airplay" - this is not possible as, unlike in the US, airplay is not (and never has been) used in any way in calculating UK chart placings ChrisTheDude 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but it helps to sell the song, making it chart higher! Wneedham02 (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop Deleting Her Picture

I'm tired of coming on her page and her picture is gone or it changes. Stick with one picture...don't you know how annoying that is?

German Charts

In German Top 100 "Take a Bow" reached #7, so the peak for Germany has to be #7, not #8

Rihanna's filmography

In Rihanna's filmography there is only one film (Mama Black Widow a 2009 upcoming film) however she starred in Bring It On: All or Nothing (2006) as herself, Rihanna.

Here's the cast for the film:

Starring

Hayden Panettiere
Solange Knowles-Smith
Gus Carr
Marcy Rylan
Francia Almendarez
Cindy Chiu
Giovonnie Samuels
Jessie Fife
Gary Leroi Gray
Danielle Savre
Rihanna
Swin Cash
Christina Joelia

I've edited her filmography to correct it. 22:47 12th August 2008 (UTC)

Mama Black Widow

On her filmography Mama Black Widow says 2008 when on the page of the film it says that it's set to be released in 2009 so I've edited it. 12:32 13th August 2008 (UTC)

Chris Brown

Chris Brown and Rihanna have been dating each other for a year now. There are tona of pictures all over the internet of the couple hugging and kissing. There's also strong speculation that Chris has proposed to Rihanna because she was snapped wearing a 20 karat diamond ring on her wedding finger found here http://news.lalate.com/2008/03/01/chris-brown-rihanna-wedding-engagement-ring-picture-chris-brown-rihanna-wedding-proposal-engagement-ring-claims-site/. But when Rihanna found out that the marriage rumors were spreading, she decided to take off the ring. They don not have any matching tattos except for the one n their hands (as Chris Brown confessed). Chris denied that the couple are getting married any time soon, but the future doesn't hold on to promises.

Who removed mama black widow from her filmography?

!! shes in the cast you idiot

Tiny spelling correction

In her biography section, it says her mother is of Guyenese decent - correct spelling is Guyanese.

40 million singles

Can someone take this out of the beginning, theres no sources, and the person who put it thought platnium and gold status in other countries means 1,000,000 and 500,000, when it's different in other countries.--PUNk Limited (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done The album sales figure seems to be sourced, if the figures in the discography can be trusted (which I didn't doublecheck). Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 21:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

CHANGE THAT UGLY PICTURE OF HER SINGING..SHE HAS BETTER!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolatetea18 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Girl Gone Bad concert

[[Image:<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/good girl gone bad live" target="_blank"><img src="http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk241/scanner_2008/MUSICAS/imagemdll.jpg" border="0" alt="Rihanna - Good Girl Gone Bad Live (2008) Pictures, Images and Photos"></a>]].

Rihana Good Girl Gone Bad is the first concert in a decade to be put on a DVD. The concert is out in stores. The concert features: Sos Question Existing Pon de replay and many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallcheekmitch (talk • contribs) 10:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That can't be right seen as though there are many concert DVD's been produced a year! Wneedham02 (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Tied with Beyonce for 5 Number one singles"

I believe that this part is a mistake? Rihanna has only had 4 Number one singles on the hot 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashforce (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

SOS + Umbrella + Take a Bow + Disturbia + Live Your Life = 5 SylverSpy 93 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Live Your Life is not Rihannas single, therefore it cannot be counted towards her total tally. This is the standard rule that featured artists are not credited. The source used to justify the statement about her having 5 singles is from Billboard, and if you read that source it says she only has 4 number ones, Therefore it is a false source which is extremely frowned upon academically, it needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashforce (talk • contribs) 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The source we cite also says "It's Rihanna's fourth chart-topper here, tying her with Beyonce and Mariah Carey for the most by a female artist this decade." Thanks for the correction. Cheers, Amalthea 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to keep complaining but i still think this part is inaccurate. I dont think you can say Rihanna has had 5 number ones even if you mention that one of them was as a featured artist. She has had 4 number ones, and featured on a song that reached number one. I believe only the lead artist is credited with the number one. Can you say that someone has had 5 number ones, 4 of them as a writer? And if you can, then does this tie them with a person who has had 5 number ones as a leading artist?

EXAMPLE: Timberland is a person who has featured on numerous number ones but not credited as having that number one (featured or not). Not to mention all the number ones he has produced. If he was he would be one of the most successful Billboard musicians of the decade perhaps.

Its not my intention to take anything away from Rihanna. I know that this is a common area of dispute on Wikipedia (T.I is credited with having 'My Love' as his number one) and I'm probably wrong, but I just want her article to be accurate as possible so i thought it should be brought up and discussed. Crashforce (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. And I actually agree with you. I would remove the mention of the featured single from the lead again, and would slightly reword the Notable success and accomplishments section to be more precise, too, by pushing the information about the "Live Your Life" song behind the mention of the record, like 'In addtion, Rihanna also featured on the number one hit "Live Your Life" by T.I.'
I've invited Legolas2186 to this discussion since he tweaked the lead to its current form. Let's see what he thinks. Cheers, Amalthea 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, i do believe that Rihanna being a guest vocalist on "Live Your Life", there is a confusion that whether she has five or four Billboard Hot 100 number one singles. So i checked into Billboard where the first news about T.I.'s Live Your Life taking the top spot came. There they specifically mentioned that it is the fifth number one song for Rihanna. The info about the fourth number one tying her with Beyonce and Mariah Carey was for "Disturbia". Billboard does credit the featured appearances also. Hence that means they don't consider being a featured artist a separate criteria. Even everyone else like Justin Timberlake, 4(3 as solo + 1 as featured), Nelly Furtado 3(2 as solo + 1 as featured), T-Pain (countless as featured only), Timabaland (yes, he is credited for the number ones, unlike stated above) have the featured number one songs added to their achivements. Hence I tweaked the main info, so that it reflected 5 number ones, but also mentioned that one of them is for a featured artist. We don't need to mention the song names there as they are already mentioned in the respective sections. Hope i have been of help. Cheers "Legolas" (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out this link from Billboard where the chart analyst does credit Rihanna for 5 number one singles Chart Beat "Legolas" (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna officially has 4 #1 singles in the USA. Not 5, as she did not have any writing credit, producing credit etc, for "Live Your Life" it does no get added to her list of achievements. FACT.... (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/bio/index.jsp?pid=658897) Wneedham02 (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check the current issue of chart beat on Billboard. It states that Justin Timberlake is credited for 4 number 1's, though he was a featured artist on Give It To Me. Hence, Rihanna will have 5 number 1's. --Legolas!! ^(talktome) 11:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Queen of RnB

I think it's hardly fair to call her the Queen of RnB in 2007 just on the basis of one article. The title is thrown around constantly to many different artists (Beyonce, Mariah, Mary J, Ciara) and to put it as a fact in the beginning of the article is invalid and not noteworthy due to the source being one article on a gossip website. 80.6.169.151 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and Acalamari has already removed it again. --Amalthea 22:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The current state of the article is still not very satisfactory, even though the "Queen of RnB" is gone again. I think that the hatnote should return to distinguish between Rihanna and Rhianna, the rumored titles have to go since there is no proof whatsoever for the "Dark Angels" title (as shown in the six AfDs for various titles), no proof that she is going to act in Mama Black Widow (to the contrary!), and not to speak of the punctuation error in the genre field in the infobox. The current lead is also naming the number one singles repeatedly. I personally would return to a version before the recent changes, but am open with regards to the order of the genres in the infobox, and could agree that Beyoncé be left out of the lead section (although I don't like it to say that Rihanna is "tied" with 4 number one hits, but not saying with whom). Opinions? --Amalthea 01:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna in 2007 won the awards for best R & B and if you read all the sites on Rihanna seen it said that like most of his music R & B. Only there is not very credible source and that but you do not like the singer. Mainly this Amaltha User talk:Rbwm 14:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?!! The Queen Of R'n'B?!!! I don't hate Rihanna, she fine to me, but beside such great artists as Beyonce, Mariah and many, many more, you pronounce some girl with less than 5-years-old career The Queen Of R'n'B? Sorry, but r'n'b was always known for it's great singers, and Rihanna's voice sucks. Get real! Iggy Ax (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No i not apologize. Now I do say "Excuse me?!!". Beyonce better than Rihanna? Only you can be playing. Already ranked as the Billboad the R&B Queen. You are nothing to hate someone... The Beyonce voice sucks... You SUCK! Get Real!User talk:Rbwm 17:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Rihanna is The Queen, Beyonce's voice sucks and I'm the King Of England. You're just playing stupid, and i'm smart enough to know that you're just a stupid kid who thinks Rihanna is God. Well, i don't care. When you grow up, you'll learn that you were wrong. And everyone who says that Beyonce's voice sucks, well... I don't have to talk anything else with him, cause Beyonce, my friend, has one of the best voices of all time (confirmed by many huge stars), and didn't you forget something, Rihanna said that Beyonce is her BIGGEST IDOL, here you go: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sCYU5lQP8zI . Who sucks now, ah? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iggy Ax (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please be reminded that this is not a forum. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this is not a forum and many users don't deserve so much attention :) RIHANNA IS THE BEST! END OF HISTORY Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually think Mariah is the one who should have the title of The RnB's Queen, but you started the whole Beyonce-sucks thing. Mariah popularized melismatic singing and all the RnB singers use it today, she has sold over 170 million albums and has been a successful singer when Rihanna was a baby. Ha! This is not a forum, but this is a DISCUSSION. Iggy Ax (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness I think that possibly a mention that she has been called the R&B queen would be OK but keep it at that. And yes, this is not a forum so please discuss "who is the better singer" somewhere else. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  12:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RIHANNA IS THE BEST! END OF HISTORY, and Rihanna is the R&B Queen Say what you say Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Vitor, this is not a WP:FORUM. If someone adds it in the article, it should be properly sourced. --Efe (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

can rihanna even be called rnb, its more pop. She is not the queen of Rnb anyway, thats between beyonce, mary, mariah and alicia - nothing against her, she just aint to that level yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.175.228 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So the IMDB says Rihanna The Queen Of The R&B...[1] and for the little people see the source in Rihanna, te billboard says, R&B, Rap no POP... RIHANNA THE BEST EVER Vítor & Rihanna (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source. --Efe (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

the idmb is not a music company- they cant dish out titles! i am not knocking rihanna but she is not the queen of rnb- princess of pop maybe! but not rnb - leave that to vocalists like alicia keys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.175.228 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 Grammy Awards, her beating, alleged Chris Brown role

The night before the 2009 grammy's Rihanna and Chris Brown got into an argument on the way to their hotel. The argument escalated into Chris Brown assalting Rihanna, after which she called the cops on Chris who had already left the scene. No official word on how badly injured Rihanna is has been made, however Chris is facing Felony battery charges which suggests she was injured pretty badly. Due to this both Chris and Rihanna cancelled their appearances at the 2009 grammy awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardknocklife4you (talk • contribs) 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we cannot add this to the article. It has no encyclopedic value. --Efe (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no he's right! It should go in the article because it's big news! --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No it should not. This is an encyclopedia not a news blog. Charmed36 (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Then check out Chris Brown's article. If it's notable enough to be mentioned there (and this example matters because it does involve Rihanna), then it should be mentioned here. It's not small trivia --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are more reliable sources confirming this:1, 2 and 3 (this one confirms Rihanna as the victim). None of these are "news blogs" and the incident is highly notable and reported by many news sources. If this doesn't meet WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOURCES, then I don't know what does. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You say that link number 3 confirms Rihanna as the victim, yet the headline for that article says the victim is "suspected" to be Rihanna. That's not confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.10.254.63 (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• And another reliable source, CNN. It still feels a little early to jump on this story for Wikipedia though. Per WP:BLP, additions of this nature must be *very* careful. DP76764 (Talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No where it says that the woman in question is Rihanna. So, cannot be added. "Legolas" (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent point, and exactly why it is too soon to think about adding this. It's likely that it's her, but without reliable sources saying so, it's a no-no for the article. DP76764 (Talk) 06:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How could a canceled performance become encyclopedic/significant? --Efe (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I think we create a personal life section in the article. I thought it was just all about the canceled performance. --Efe (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, I find CNN reliable but the site says "alleged domestic violence". We have to be careful. I think it would be better if its confirmed that it's Rihanna. But on the Chris Brown article, I think its fine there. --Efe (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's important to note that all of these sources say it was allegedly Rihanna. They do not prove or disprove either side. Until a reliable source confirms it was her, this incident should not be mentioned in the article at all. DiverseMentality 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. "Legolas" (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be added until it is definitely confirmed that she was the victim. However, the use of the word alleged is a legalese term that the media uses to protect itself & that the justice system uses until someone is convicted. If I murdered thousands of people on national television & it was witnessed by millions of people, they would say that I allegedly murdered thousands of people and that I was allegedly a mass murderer despite all of the witnesses. So don't take the use of the word "alleged" or "allegedly" as meaning there is any doubt about what happened, when it happened, who it happened to, and who did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.176 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as reports differ from naming Rihanna to saying "an unidentified woman", then either way, it's not confirmed just yet. DiverseMentality 07:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's alleged until he's been convicted. No one is stating that he was in fact guilty of the assault, just that an incident did occur. This needs to be worded in a way to reflect that Rihanna was indeed involved, not necessarily that he is in fact guilty of assaulting her. So the use of the term "alleged" is a moot point. This has been confirmed by the LA Times, which meets reliability under WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOURCES.Link: LA Times Magemirlen (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC also commented on the issue, stating that the LA Times did report that Rihanna is the previously unidentified woman. Link: MSNBC Magemirlen (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the fuss over this matter? WikiPedia is not news. Besides, it would be wise to just wait until everything's clear. Regarding the LA Times news, "official police statement did not name Rihanna" but "only sources said the woman was Rihanna, whose full name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty". So which source has more weight? The official police or the "source"? --Efe (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point it can't be said which is more reliable. I think lets not hurry. We wait a few days when i'm sure if its a serious case and Rihanna is involved, more reliable sources naming the victim, will come up. Then we can see if its Rihanna, it can go in the article. "Legolas" (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Efe, The police didn't name Rihanna becuase it is against their policy to identify the victim. "The identity of the victim will not be released," said Officer April Harding. "Any victim who's involved in a domestic violence incident is entitled to confidentiality." Link to statement Magemirlen (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So that clearly means Rihanna's asasociation with this incident is speculation and would probably remain that. More reasons for not addding this to the article. "Legolas" (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the police did not identify Rihanna is a moot point. The refusal of the police department to confirm the identity of the woman does not repudiate nor contradict the LA times in anyway. It simply means the police department refuses to comment on the matter. What we do know is that the LA Times does meet WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOURCES; identification by this new organization does confirm and validate that Rihanna is the woman involved in this case. You cannot arbitrarily claim speculation. It is not permissable to cherry pick the source. The police department is not the sole purveyor of knowledge in this case. Frankly, the burden of proof falls on those that oppose the identification of Rihanna in this investigation. Unless someone can provide a source that confirms that Rihanna is NOT the woman, as evidence has been provided to the contrary that meets wikipedia guidelines, it should be added. Magemirlen (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

More sources confirming Rihanna as victim: MSNBC Source: Brown bit Rihanna, hit her with fists San Jose Mercury News Reports: Victim named in Brown assault charge is Rihanna. I understand everyone wants to keep the article as accurate as possible, but the majority of the sources say Rihanna was the victim of Chris Brown's assault. I don't know how much more proof is needed. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe because this "source" has not been revealed and some of his/her statements have already been retracted after being proven false? Remember how there was a weapon involved originally and now theres been no mention of it. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not Truth, and while its fairly obvious that -something- happened, nothing verifiable has come out yet. (msn might be a reliable source, but they have not named THEIR source) Nar Matteru (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The false statement concerning the use of a weapon in the assault was courtesy of TMZ. That's not a reliable source, but MSNBC is, and that's because the sources they use are reputable per WP:SOURCES. E! Online, along with MSNBC even point out that Rihanna went the hospital to get treated for her injuries. This has nothing to do with truth, I'm not here to make personal, firsthand claims that Chris Brown really did beat Rihanna, I'm here to point out that the news sources make it clear that Rihanna was the victim, and therefore it should be alright to include it in the article. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

msnbc is basing it on Access Hollywood which is not a verifiable source for the exact same reason TMZ isn't. Not to mention both tmz and accesshollywood are going by these same unnamed "inside sources" and have both recanted things. The world will not end just because this isnt included in wikipedia right away. Nar Matteru (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree completely. There is no need to rush to add this into the article. Take a look at the Talk:Gordon Ramsay page in regards to adding material about the allegations of infidelity. The editor wishing to add it requested input, patiently waited for a week (or more) for input and worked with others to come up with a clean way to add the material. DP76764 (Talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now CNN has identified that Rihanna was indeed the woman. As far as I am aware, the LA Times, MSNBC, and now CNN has identified the woman as Rihanna. CNN also meets WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOURCES. Magemirlen (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now? thats the same article from this morning.... "updated 10:45 a.m. EST, Mon February 9, 2009" and still no "sources close to the couple" identified Nar Matteru (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this section is getting to be obscenely long, I'll call it a day and agree to wait for further details. Though I don't personally agree with the assessment that Access Hollywood isn't reliable (it used the same source as the others to imply that Rihanna was the victim), maybe it should wait a couple of days. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, we do not second guess the ability of major news organizations that meet WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOURCES to use unnamed sources. News organizations have been using anonymous sources or unnamed sources for years. This is an accepted practice. Frankly, CNN, MSNBC, and the LA Times have all reported this. They have all verified this information. I think people who argue against unnamed sources may be confused by the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability . These news organizations are reliable sources, and we can check the articles. Done deal. Magemirlen (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I added this link to an LA Times article confirming. --Chasingsol^(talk) 08:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read: WP:BLP and realize that BLP's have higher standards for just about everything, including sourcing and current events with no information ready.

And don't quote the same thing I quoted to crackthewhip, it makes no sense in this context, what "truth" am I supposed to be championing? Nar Matteru (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

The section has been removed due to a claim of no consensus. I believe that the concerns above are solely regarding the verifiability of whether Rihanna was the victim. I propose to add the following to the article.

Rihanna was scheduled to perform at the 2009 Grammy Awards. At short notice her appearance was canceled because of what her publicist described as "a traffic mishap". Her boyfriend, Chris Brown, was arrested on suspicion of making criminal threats against her, and she was treated at a local hospital for minor injuries following an altercation between them. The Los Angeles Times reports that she is cooperating with investigators and that the incident is currently undergoing investigation.

--Chasingsol^(talk) 08:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this supported by Los Angeles Times: "Further reports from police indicate that Rihanna accused boyfriend Chris Brown of assault that night and that she was injured during an argument between the two." --Efe (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've modified it. --Chasingsol^(talk) 09:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Due to WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT I would suggest gathering information here, but not adding it until the investigation is over. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the attack on her not in the article. Please update! Don't give me anything about no one knows if she is the victim. "LAPD reports the woman suffered visible injuries." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29106475/ 67.139.146.6 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, are you kidding? I understand the need for "historical perspective," but not even having a SENTENCE on the attack is dishonest. And at this point, it's been well established in MULTIPLE news sources that she was the victim, so what exactly are we doing here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.19.124 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone: Report: Rihanna Suffered “Horrific” Injuries, MTV Rihanna Cooperates In Chris Brown Investigation. Come on, how much more reliable proof do we need? A tape of Rihanna saying in her own words she was beaten by Chris? I understand the need for accuracy, but this already meets the rules for inclusion in an article. And for anyone questioning the sources, Rolling Stone and MTV are reliable, they're used as sources for many articles about musicians. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 20:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Rihanna's family reportedly wants here to leave the United States and return to Barbados.

Family wants Rihanna home, Nation Newspaper (Barbados), 2/10/09 CaribDigita (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the I.P. that made a comment on Wikipedia below me? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Removed for unconstructive, off-topic trolling and soapboxing DP76764 (Talk) 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for this not to enter her biography section, at least, just as soon as it's official that it happened to her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.46.65 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the section (slightly reworded) since consensus clearly indicates that we should include this information. --Chasingsol^(talk) 01:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the section have its own title, though? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but I couldn't think of what to put that doesn't create unnecessary weight in regards to the rest of the article. Feel free to add any suggestion. --Chasingsol^(talk) 03:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

what people know about rhianna her and fomer boyfriend were in the car when the insodent happen and rhianna was drinking so she was getting out aof hand and chris brown was trying to stop her because she was the one who had started the violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.105.205 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source to backup that would be good to have. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when are beatings to be omitted from bios?? The TMZ photo makes the beating obvious. I added a brief section, supported by references.This section on this current page needs something more specfic than innocuous title on Grammys. Dogru144 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

They aren't. Beatings with absolutely little information regarding them are. As is anything published by tmz.

This is an ongoing issue, it will be added in due time with due weight and proper sourcing as more information becomes available. Wikipedia is not CNN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive59#conerns_over_recent_domestic_violence_reports_between__Chris_Brown_and_Rihanna Nar Matteru (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Basic human dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style outlines guidelines to respect a person's identity.

• Per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT the information should not have its own section. This incident, however horrific, is not by any means, the sum total of Rihanna's biography. We have a responsibility to treat BLP subject matter such as this with the utmost sensitivity, hence why Rihanna's name wasn't even mentioned in the initial reports. For the record I still object to including this information until the investigation is over, or at the very least, until Rihanna or her spokespeople speak directly on the subject. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. "Legolas" (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you contact Chasingsol, Book. --Efe (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't mind whether the information is there or not, I merely came across the article, saw the section and then took an interest in sourcing the information provided. I disagree that policy prevents the inclusion of this material and consensus above indicates a desire to include the information. It is well sourced, neutral and is certainly not a large section. Her notability does NOT originate because of this action, which the above quoted policies are referring to, she was already notable. It also does not mock or disparage. By the same token, the Chris Brown (entertainer) article has a totally separate section on this particular event, also names Rihanna as the victim and so on. The event is a major news story about an ALREADY notable person. --Chasingsol^(talk) 09:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree Rihanna's notability (obviously) does not originate from this incident, nonetheless, the general principle on respecting subjects privacy, esp in cases of victimization applies regardless. Major news stories are not always sufficient grounds for encyclopedic value, esp when they concern BLPs. Biographies also have much more consideration to take into account and consensus is not always in the best interest of article subjects. I reiterate the biggest concern here outside of BLP is recentism...leaked inforamtion and speculation is all that even the most reliable news sources can provide at the time, which is not encyclopedic. Per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, there is no harm in delaying addition of this information until the investigation is closed. I have raised similar BLP concerns at both Chris Brown and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with book. Wait until information becomes more clear. And when it does, remember to keep a long term outlook when adding it. Also as an addendum to "Major news stories are not always sufficient grounds for encyclopedic value, esp when they concern BLPs." Major, respected news sources also, quite often are much more lax in checking out sources, anonymous or not, when it comes to entertainment news than they would more "serious" news Nar Matteru (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended other editors if I and came off pushy. I want what's best for the article just like everyone else. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's more important to deal with this incident in the Chris Brown article (since he was arrested and charged and he's losing sponsorships because of it) than in this article. I'd be fine with removing it for now. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note my dissent. This is covered by WP:WELLKNOWN under WP:BLP . Moreover, the fact that Rihanna was the one that was allegedly attacked is not speculation. This has been confirmed by CNN, MSNBC, The LA Times, among others. This meets both WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOURCES . We do not second guess the ability of major news organizations that meet WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOURCES to use unnamed sources; especially when a consensus has been formed among the mainstream media as to the validity of the sources. Magemirlen (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are widely missing the point. No one here is questioning the validity to the sources at all. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WesleyDodds. Ok, so we might have reliable sources saying she's the alleged victim. Eventually, we might have reliable sources saying she was the victim. But is it notable? From a historical standpoint, will it have any lasting effect on her career or biography? I'm skeptical. I would argue it belongs on Chris Brown, because it already has had major impact on his career. But here? Until we have sources showing that this incident is notable to her bio (horrific, yes, but Wikipedia notable?), it should be removed. -kotra (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how this article lightly touches on the allegations of Chris Brown beating Rihanna. When all those things were happening to Britney Spears, you guys made every effort to put in anything you could, even stuff that didn't belong there, and may not have been true. In Whitney Houston's article it states "she is the subject of lesbian rumors" which I feel doesn't belong in her article. Not only that, but it takes you to a link where Whitney denies it so it doesn't even substantiate the allegation, so it shouldn't be there anyway. If lesbian rumors were in Lindsay Lohan's article, I could understand that as that's been widely reported and based off video footage, it appears to be true, nothing wrong with that. The point is, you guys can't decide you want to put in every little thing you "hear" or read about one person, and then totally ignore reports on others; such as Beyonce falling down a flight of stairs head first; reports of Mariah Carey having tried to commit suicide several years ago after her flop albums and movies; or Angelina Jolie not speaking with her dad for several years and stealing married womens' husbands. Either you're gonna go all out and write every bit of truth and crap for everyone, or you're gonna keep it more professional and write things pertaining to an encyclopedia article. I vote for the latter, but in the case of some articles, people want to get very negative, and then protect others from their same type of writing standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.78.221 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

define "You guys" please. Nar Matteru (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They know who they are... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Not all responsible editors watch all the same articles. 2) newly registered users who have no concept of wikipedia policy often flock to high profile subject such as Birty Spears and Lindsay Lohan to add the latest news, which in turn, makes it increasingly difficult to keep those articles under control. 3) there has been increased effort by myself and others to keep a number of articles under control. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

A very small amendment in the section headed:" ===2007–present: Good Girl Gone Bad==="

In the second sentence in the second paragraph the current text reads: "making it the longest-running UK number-one single since Wet Wet Wet's single "Love Is All Around" spent 15 weeks in 1994". Spent 15 weeks where is the obvious question! I'd suggest changing it to "spent 15 weeks at the top".

Spielberg (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Amalthea 13:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

I think the sentence

Reports state that after an altercation with her boyfriend and singer, Chris Brown, was arrested on suspicion of making criminal threats against her.

should become something like

Reports state that after an altercation between them, her boyfriend and singer Chris Brown was arrested on suspicion of making criminal threats against her.

- Well, that implies that Chris Brown is both her boyfriend and singer. It should read:

Reports state that after an altercation between them, her boyfriend and fellow singer Chris Brown was arrested on suspicion of making criminal threats against her.

Categories

Why Rihana is considered in this categories: American actor-singers, American female singers, American pop singers, People from San Diego, California, if she is Barbadian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.187.87.135 (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of her first name

Should this be included? I did have this on my wiki's version (which had a mirrored copy of this article) but whether it's relevant or not, I don't know! --Litherlandsand (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason against it if it can be sourced, however some might argue that its not encyclopedic. Nar Matteru (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna is Appaled by Chris's apology

An anonymous friend of the singer has spoken to the media about the incident and his comments to the press this week.

In an interview with The Chicago Sun-Times, the unknown source said the "Umbrella" singer was incredulous at the latest comments from her boyfriend.

"All of us, including Rihanna, don't understand how he can say he's sorry on the one hand, but still does not admit any guilt", commented the friend.

"He should have expressed more contrition", she said of Brown, who is currently under investigation following his arrest in Los Angeles on February 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.238.31 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it'd be best to wait for an official comment, either her words or the words of an official spokesman. We can't be sure if an unnamed person accurately reflects the feelings of Rihanna.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia isn't here to follow the minutiae of the incident, so it probably wouldn't be included even if she said it herself. -kotra (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

This is so bad!! --Legolas!! ^(talktome) 09:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Be aware this is not a WP:FORUM. While I agree the photo is horrific, the article offers nothing new to discuss in relation to the article. Though, infringing on WP:FORUM myself, I'd just like to say how much I absolutely loath TMZ. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed like i was in a forum like discussion. My only concern was to end the ongoing discussion regarding the assault by Chris Brown. Thats why i wanted to discuss whether the link is a valid proof or not. Now articles have stated the assaulted person in question is Rihanna and that was a proof i was looking for. But i am still sceptical as to how much we should include in the article. --Legolas!! ^(talktome) 09:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, its not. All web sites (CNN, TMZ, etc) including this one, who have commented on the photo are still required to refer to the incident as an "alleged" assault. Brown still hasn't been charged and the LADP has not confirmed anything. Again, Technically the photo could be photoshoped/watermarked. The LAPD did state: "The unauthorized release of a domestic violence photograph immediately generated an internal investigation," an L.A. police spokesman said in a statement. "The Los Angeles Police Department takes seriously its duty to maintain the confidentiality of victims of domestic violence. A violation of this type is considered serious misconduct, with penalties up to and including termination."The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Book. I understand now. --Legolas!! ^(talktome) 09:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

oh, please... Leave Rihanna alone... Vítor & Rihanna msg 22:07, 20 February 2009

If you don't mind, I started a topic @ the top of the Talk, If you wouldn't mind reading it & commenting. This is a pretty big issue we have going on right now.Boygenius 13 (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds...

...That I changed the part in the Charity Work section that says "Was lauded for her efforts to help a woman find a bone marrow donor" to "Helped a woman find a bone marrow donor", because "lauded for her efforts" sounds POVish. Also, the part about her collaboration with Gucci said "Dressed in head-to-toe Gucci" was unnecessary, so I removed that. Also, I'd like to know why Live Your Life is counted as one of her singles? I thought since she was only featured on the song, it didn't count as a single for her. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing POV is always good. As for Live Your Life, I think it "counts" when an artist is featured or is part of a duo (The have numerous awards specifically for collaborations), but it may need to be specified "featured with T.I". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually T.I. is already mentioned in the lead, so I think its fine. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Genres

As you can see [2] the Billboard has the singer and gender-specific multiple users exploit these sources. The Billboard is a trusted source or not? Yeah I think so. While Pop is not there but could not put put in front of R&B or remove the source. Peace. Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 21:45 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at that source before, three sections up at #Genre, and as far as I can tell it can't be used to verify any genres. Could you read what I said up there? --Amalthea 22:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Cache

[3] It says "www.***.com BITCH GOT OWNED" over and over. Look for it in the news soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks okay now...has it been updated or something? Acalamari 17:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Feb 26, 2009 07:56:55 GMT."
I haven't checked when the vandalism occured, but I guess it was updated at roughly the same time when Peregrine posted the above. --Amalthea 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Resolved

Vitorvicentevalente, can you please show where on the billboard.com page you keep referencing you find reliable sourcing for the genres R&B, Rap, Dance, Rock, Reggae? While that page mentions the genres in the navigational column on the left, all that it means is that there are search results associated with that genre that have the word "Rihanna" in it, nothing more. For example, if you click on "Rap" there, you get to [4]. Associating Rihanna with "Rap" based on that is incorrect. --Amalthea 22:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Based on Allmusic, Rollingstone, and NME Rihanna can be categorized as R&B, Pop, Dancehall/reggae. Rock is sort of an automatic for modern artist as the rock music genre encompasses anything which is not classical music or post 1950s. Most books which chronicle the "rock era" of music discuss all modern genres. Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre states to "Aim for generality". Since dancehall is a subgenre of reggae, I'd suggest listing Her as Contemporary R&B (which includes hip hop/rap), Reggae, Pop music (which includes dance-pop), and Rock music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, look the page [5] in the box the line says "Albums & Songs -> Music Genre"... You see? :) For example Live Your Life is Rap, and other remixes with The Dreamer and Elephant Man. But my objective was to prove that Rihanna is a R&B and i do that :) Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 22:33 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna is a guest on T.I. song who is a rap artist. Per Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre Aim for generality. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Think of how it is now? Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:09 22 February 2009 (UTC)

First, citations for the infobox aren't nessecary. Second, billboard is referencing where she places on their charts. Any artist can place anywhere on any chart as long as they have enough music components in a particle song that would involve that charts primary genre. The musical style section of this article explains her genres through a number of sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations Citations in the lead are not needed as long as the information is sourced in the body of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I and other user discussed a few times for not agreeing with the gender of the singer. I used reliable sources and the [User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult]] constantly remove. Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:37 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is because you ignored various policies on sourcing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• My attempt it to adhere to Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre and Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations. I have sourced her genres using different sources in the "Musical style and performance" section of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No it's because i saw "Rihanna is R&B" and Amalthea saw "Rihanna is Pop", and Billboar are a good source, like Amalthea said to me Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:44 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not put words in my mouth, please. I very much disagree that the source you've been using supports the genres you were adding. --Amalthea 23:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard is a nice source but its reliability depends on what your are referencing. --Efe (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That panel on the left side does not mean its her genre. Its only the genre of the chat in which her single(s) managed to appear. Her singles could even appear in country charts, but that does not mean she is a country singer. That's what we call us crossover success. --Efe (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But you say I had to prove that Rihanna was R&B, now says no? Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:37 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that the page you cited couldn't be used for verification, for the reason Efe mentioned above. --Amalthea 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• For reference, my input is that she be listed R&B, reggae, pop, rock. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• The disagreement seems to have mostly evaporated now. Having had a look at the sources Book mentioned, in particular Rihanna's biography section at the Rolling Stone and the album articles there, I agree with him. The only difference from Vitor's current version and Book's is whether to link to R&B or to Contemporary R&B, and it seems clear to me that it should be the latter (piped or not), from the definition of the genre. --Amalthea 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  It should be contemporary R&B. Rhythm & Blues is more historic, while contemporary R&B is 1980's and beyond (use of synth and other electronic production techniques). Very few modern artists are Rhythm and blues, the vast majority, including Rihanna are contemporary. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, and I'm a fan of having citations next to the genres in the infobox since they are quite regularly the topic of disputes and "likely to be challenged". --Amalthea 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. They clutter the infobox and, in my experience, if people are hell bent on altering the genre field, they're going to do it regardless of whats in the infobox. Per WP:LEAD, we have sources in the body of the article, if there is a content dispute, we can refer them there or to this section, or both. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What about that rock? --Efe (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rock, like Shut Up And Drive and Rihanna says the next album will be more Rock and Punk Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 00:58 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because shut up and drive has rock influences does not generalize her into being a rock singer. Also, her next album is months away. --Efe (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just strolling by. My input on the two issues:

• R&B vs. contemporary R&B: clearly contemporary R&B. I have an extensive collection of R&B, and I wouldn't even consider purchasing a Rihanna album. Very few contemporary artists still play anything recognizable as "R&B".
• Rock? No. "Contemporary R&B" and "reggae" sum her up nicely. "Rock" isn't some kind of big blanket category that you can put over everybody that doesn't play big-band jazz. It's a broad genre, but not sweeping in scope.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me now. I'm going to remove the Wikiproject Hip Hop, too. --Amalthea 01:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Move protection?

This article is move protected until disputes on the talk page have been resolved. The dispute about the incident or the dispute about what genres of music she specifically sings? And where has the article constantly been moved to? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I move protected it due to a serial page-move vandal that struck the page, not because there is any dispute over the name of the article. As this page-move vandal often keeps move-vandalizing pages that he's hit that haven't been move-protected yet, it was a good idea to move-protect the page. As this vandal is still active, I think the move-protection is still a good idea for now, and I can't see this page being moved to a new title without consensus. Acalamari 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when is November before February?

The article says:

Rihanna then started touring with Pussycat Dolls from November to February 2007 in the United Kingdom.

Could this have mean "from November 2006 to February 2007"? Or did the tour really end ten months before it began? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume the former, since the entire sentence starts off "In 2006". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Education?

Did Rihanna graduate from Combermere School? 143.112.144.129 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

New single by Brown and Rihanna

According to this Brown and Rihanna have recorded a single which speaks of the assault, which looks legitimate since the source is the song's producer, but I think commenting on it in either article should wait until the single is released to radio or at least until more music related sources (Billboard/Rolling Stone etc) comment on it. Musicians seems to be notorious for promising "new music" and then having the material delayed for a variety of reasons, or it simply never surfaces. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Report confirmed to be false. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Race

Her father is actually of African and Irish descent, but her mother is also mixed race (African and East Indian descent), not only black.

• Please find a SOURCE for something like this. And new discussions go at the bottom of the page, please. DP76764 (Talk) 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is already sourced in the second sentence of the early life section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Incident (per se)

It is so hard to try and keep up with all of the issues regarding the "fight" soo in lieu I just started a new section for it completely, and therefore, conversing can be continued following, and singularily regarding the "fight". Hanabee had written "Then, a picture of her was released courtesy of TMZ that appeared to show her face beat up by Chris Brown. God, what a prick." And i saw that, and deleted that post, then placed a objective line stating that one leaked picture cannot be used, and that who even knows if that was a real picture. Press is Press, cant trust them. But then Bookkeeperoftheoccult deleted my post beause we have to wait till the case is closed. Why? It is just simply information, there was no false judgment, pretence, nor aquizitions within the lines I wrote. j/w not trying to get into a cyber-fight. Boygenius 13 (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

One more note - there are millions of people flocking to Wikipedia right now to get information, we should come to a general consensus on what has happened, and place a short line or two so people can get what they want. And place a warning for information that is added that hasn't gone through the talk. Boygenius 13 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please read point number 18 on this talk page (above). In short: WP:NOT#JOURNALISM Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
• WP:RECENTISM: Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention. Established articles may be overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens, new articles may be created on flimsy merits, and the relative emphasis on timeless facets of a subject which Wikipedia consensus had previously recognized may be muddled by this practice.
• Wikipedia:BLP#Basic_human_dignity: Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Until the investigation is closed, or Rihanna or her official spokesperson releases any statements, we should not be adding any new information based on the combined three principles above. Any one who wants up-to-the-minute information should be looking to CNN, Los Angeles Times, or other news organization, not an encyclopedia. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In theory that is all good, but they did it for Heath, so why not Rihanna? And all three of those points can be obeyed perfectly as long as no assumptions are made in regard to the outcome or anything not known. Your own post on the page is doing the exact opposite of what you have just quoted. Boygenius 13 (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is Heath Ledger died and there were almost immediate conformations of cause of death. Rihanna is very much alive and her privacy is the utmost concern. Neither Rihanna, Brown, nor The LAPD have confirmed anything other than an "alleged assault". I don't see how any of my edits are contradictions. Nonetheless, per consensus in the above section, and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#conerns_over_recent_domestic_violence_reports_between__Chris_Brown_and_Rihanna the section is to remain as is until 1) the investigation closes, or Rihanna speaks. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Bookkeeper here, also, this notion that we must give the masses what they want to read on this latest 'scandal' is completely wrong. We write biographies that have historic perspective, not the latest tabloid titillation. Even if the allegation come true and there is a full blown trial and conviction, it will still only amount to three sentences coverage on this article. — R² 12:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree partially, But I'm not saying give the latest scandal, just give them the truth, many times people come to wiki for the truth, after they read some scandal within the tabloids. Either we make sure the truth stays, or there will be a ton of imbeciles filling in their two cents worth of "she deserved it/hes an ass/etc" comments. I just think it would be right to allow people to be able to read "it is not known yet whether the photo was refined, whether or not there is a court date, etc etc" just to keep on the right line. Boygenius 13 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Bookkeeper and Realist2. As for the comment, "we should come to a general consensus on what has happened", it's not our job to do what law enforcement and the reliable sources do. It's our job to wait until the information emerges more clearly, then summarize it. That's why we have the policies of WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We can wait and see before we put something in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Either we make sure the truth stays, or there will be a ton of imbeciles filling in their two cents worth of "she deserved it/hes an ass/etc" comments. That why we have watchlists and why we have the (revert) option. I just think it would be right to allow people to be able to read "it is not known yet whether the photo was refined, whether or not there is a court date, etc etc" just to keep on the right line. If we, not being a primary source, have no information on whether this is verifiable, nor any information on a pending court date, then we have no business reporting it per WP:CRYSTAL BALL. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This picture at least clears things up a bit. It was not a small incident. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats funny. I don't see anyone arguing for non inclusion based on the fact that the incident was "small" Nar Matteru (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this article doesn't even have one blurb regarding the Chris Brown incident is pretty ridiculous. While I understand the incident is being investigated, it is hard to believe that not even a small blurb about a pending domestic abuse incident involving Rihanna is not included in this article. This event is both significant and can be described without breaking any of Wikipedia's rules. I'm with Flyer22 on this. 61.63.21.246 (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)ledzppln

It might do you some good to actually read the article. The incident is mentioned in the last paragraph of the "Good Girl Gone Bad" section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Own section?

I don't feel that the incident yet deserves its own section, and sectioning it off in such a way would just encourage further recentism and tabloidesque details. -kotra (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Two sentences do not warrant an individual section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, especially the whole thing's starting to die down a bit. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not big enough for its own section yet. Though it seems that on March 5, 2009, it's getting bigger, not dying down. I was simply surprised that it's integrated into a section about her music and that there is not a Personal life section in this article where it can go. For example, the section in this article titled Charity work could be a subsection of a Personal life section for her. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal life sections tend to give WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to information which distracts the reader from the indivdual's WP:NOTABILITY. No one (save reality show stars) become famous/notable for their personal lives-its trivial in the scope of their career and should not be the focus of an encyclopedia. There has been a push in BLPs to abstain from personal life sections and write biographies in chronological order in favor of WP:WEIGHT. See Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson (both FA) as examples. Another note, the charities section should also be intergrated into the Biography instead of being separated. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "Personal life sections tend to give WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to information which distracts the reader from the indivdual's WP:NOTABILITY." While no one, except mostly reality show stars, become famous/notable for their personal lives, I do not believe that it's trivial in the scope of their career and should not be the focus of an encyclopedia.

I point to well-sourced articles such as Heath Ledger and well-sourced/Featured Articles such as Angelina Jolie. As much as Jolie is famous for her career, she is also well-known for her personal life. The same goes for Michael Jackson. Notice, though, that the sections about Jolie's personal life are not under a main section titled Personal life. But, really, I do not see the Personal life sections as that different than the Early life sections, except for the fact that the Early life sections deal with a person's early personal life...while the other deals with the person's later personal life.

I also point out that the Chris Brown article handles its section about "the incident" pretty well and it seems to be enough information there for it to have its own section.

That said, I suppose since it's more about the charges against him, all that is mentioned there is more suitable for his article. Not to mention...it's probably best not to duplicate that same exact information in both articles when there is no additional information in one of them to differentiate each other. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I hold the position that personal lives are trivial within the scope of an individuals career, purely for the reason their personal life is obviously not their life's work. The focus of an encyclopedia should be their contribution to their respective field, not tabloid journalism and the recent (10-20 year) emphasis on detailing every forgettable factor of the lives of celebrities. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And I maintain that Personal life sections are not trivial within the scope of an individual's career and that Personal life sections are not that different from Early life sections. Many Good and Featured Articles on Wikipedia have proven that, including Jolie's article, as they are not tabloid journalism or about "detailing every forgettable factor of the lives of celebrities." It's not even trivial in Michael Jackson's article. Nothing about Jackson having been accused of/charged with child molestation twice, which directly affected his career, is trivial. Rihanna "allegedly" getting beat up by Chris Brown is not trivial either, seeing as it directly intertwined with her career (as in cancelling an appearance and bruising her face/body, which are essential to her career). But that's my stance. Yours obviously differs. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia biography articles are not simply about a person's career, nor should they be; they are about that person's life. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Subjects such as MJ and Rihanna are limited exceptions to the vast majority of BLPs, but I maintain that a focus on those issues through personal life section detracts the encyclopedia from its main purpose to report on their primary notability. Several articles like Lindsay Lohan also prove how personal life sections can just as easily turn into a laundry list of pointless trivia. It is a lot easier to maintain objectivity and evaluate WEIGHT when events are placed in chronological order rather than separating issues, unless the issue warrants an individual article in its own right. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I get your point somewhat. But to say that Personal life sections (which by the way, do not have to be titled Personal life, as noted with the Angelina Jolie article) should not or should rarely be included in Wikipedia is something that I do not agree with. I do not feel that it detracts from the encyclopedia. When it does detract (from the article), then that is due to what is in the Personal life section obviously mattering to people and having something significant in it; it does not solely have trivial matters. A lot of these celebrities are also well-known for their romantic relationships, such as Brad Pitt and Jolie. I do not feel that having a section about that, as long as it's well-sourced and well-worded (and appropriate), is unencyclopedic. You probably feel that a section about Jolie's tattoos is trivial detail, but I feel that they are notable enough to be mentioned (seeing as they are a big part of her life...and career if you count how they are emphasized in one or two of her films). If a reader wants to read more about a celebrity's personal life rather than that celebrity's career, than that is that person. It does not mean that most readers are like that. And some people would say that details in these Early life sections are trivial or include things we do not need to know.

As for scandals/controversies...if celebrities do not want a scandal/controversy about or including them mentioned in their Wikipedia articles, then they should not have been the cause or part of the scandal/controversy.

In any regard, I see that you are a good editor. And I'm not trying to get a Personal life section in this article (though the Early life section also classifies as personal). I was merely giving my thoughts on this matter; where the information about the Chris Brown "incident" might be better placed.

I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I read this section on the reasoning for not creating a "personal life" section and still don't see why a personal life section has not been created. Rihanna has been romantically connected to Shia LaBeouf, Josh Hartnett, Chris Brown, and even Jay-Z. I am not saying it is all important, but I feel like confirmed relationship should have its own section. Anything personal should have it's own section. The issue Rihanna had with her father not being involved when she was growing up would be good to put there also. Just like wikipedia pages of Beyonce Knowles or even Marilyn Monroe. Tyty06 (talk)

(out-dent)Fleeting romantic connections have no significance to a biography. Irrelevant aspects of her personal life do not need their own sections. Anything that is relevant can be added to the appropriate sections in chronological order of which they occur. The focus of a biography should be the subject's career... Not their day to day lives. She's notable for being a singer, not who she dates. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood but every biography includes details of a notable singer or actress's life. Especially if that effects how they are perceived in the general public, or maybe how something happened in the childhood. What would an Elvis bio be without personal details, same with Marilyn Monroe or even Britney Spears. Rihanna is in the spotlight, everything seen should be documented. Whether we do it now or later, eventually those same details we are debating about will be an issue in her some-day autobiography, or the day she is deceased those details will come up again. So why not get the proper information, that isn't even that bad, add it to her bio and let go of it? Many users editing this page want to add it. Can't we take some sort of poll to resolve this issue? I think your personally feelings & fan relationship for Rihanna is getting in the way of how her article SHOULD be. --Tyty06 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm probably one of the most nuetral editors you'll ever meet. 2) I like some of Rihanna's music, but I am far from what anyone would consider a diehard "fan". 3) You seem to be under the false impression that Biographies are required to separate personal life from business. Please look a featured articles (wikipedia's finest work) Janet Jackson (written by me) and Michael Jackson which do not. Important personal life details are included, but they are listed in the chronological order in which they happened; they are not give their own sections, because it gives that information undue weight or emphasis. I'm not at all opposed to adding important details of her personal life, but I am opposed to giving such information individual attention as it is not crucial to her career. Is her alleged fling with Jay-Z notable? No, its not. Is a rumored relationship with Shia LeBeouf or anyone else notable for an encyclopedia? No, its not. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One other thing: In regards to your comment "Rihanna is in the spotlight, everything seen should be documented." According to our own policies, no it shouldn't. WP:BLP: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. I'll remind you there is a fundamental difference between an encyclopedia and a tabloid or an E! True Hollywood story. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna Heritage

Rihanna should not be listed under Antigua and Barbuda. Barbudan is being confused with Barbadian.

A Barbudan is a person from the island of Barbuda and a Barbadian is from the island of Barbados, quite different. 75.155.134.8 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC) March 17, 2009.

No picture reference?

There are clear pictures showing the damage Chris Brown did to Rihannas face yet the article fails to even mention that such evidence exists. Sure dont post the links to the pictures but to not even mention them makes wikipedia look like a joke and not an alleged encyclopedia.

Attempting to protect the privacy of a victim of battery is hardly a joke. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Attributing the photo in the article, in and of itself is controversial, since the law requires such information/material not be leaked. I am willing at add metion, in favor of Rihanna's law, which is passed, will have obvious impact on our society. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Music style

Rihanna has strong influences from R&B. However, she's more pop nowadays and she acts like a pop singer, too. Everything... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.8.18 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

She's an R&B singer who's R&B music has crossover appeal on the popular music charts, but she is inherently R&B, as all reliable sources claim. see this discussion. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

However, do you find "Disturbia", "Don't Stop The Music", "Pon the Replay" and a lot of her songs R&B?

This is your only warning, do not add new discussions to the top of the page, its against talk page rules. And yes, all of her songs, especially Pon de Replay are R&B/Reggae, as described by reliable sources. Dance elements are mixed in, but they are basically R&B. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna Might have been written as a R&B artist/ raggae when she first came out in the scene .. but she deff is not !!! NO MORE.. ever since the S.O.S and unfaithful and Umbrella and the tracks since then have been POP.. her hits and music is all over the POP charts .. in America and Internationally..its not crossover R&B music!! It's POP ..hence only like 2 songs from her GGGB album were on The Hot Hip Hop and R&B charts.. She is mainstream .. thats why all the main media was on her side .. and the R&B hip hop stations were with Chris Brown pretty much .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taki223 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

- - - - [didn't know where to put it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondie always in trouble (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Lately a new song has came out showing that rihanna has a new dance and techno sound song, (08 May 2009)

Public Image mistake

Umm, this sentence is written very oddly: "In 2008 she constantly surprised, switching from pretty and sweet in pastels on the red carpet to dominatrix-leaning wear on stage and at awards shows." I mean I guess it makes sense, but I think it should be reworded, especially the "surprised" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.229.98 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral POV & 1 & 2 album failure

My issue with this article is its neutrality. I find that its a bit fluffed & glamorized. Although I think the article IS Rihanna's biography, and should be positive, It should also not be biased. The perspective sometimes comes across as a die-hard fan in this article. I would like for this article to be positive, as a am a fan, but I also think that biographies should be informative for the generation after us to get a full clear perspective of an artist in our era. With that said, the beginning of Rihanna's career was not so perfect. Both album sales we're disappointing. Many reviews, tv shows, critics, blogs criticized Rihanna and didn't give her a fair shot at success because of her ties to Beyonce. Her music, her image, her performance, was all constantly compared to Beyonce. I feel that Rihanna's music/image transformation on Good Girl Gone Bad, was the MAIN thing that brought the success of that entire project. She was finally accepted as her own artist, and not a carbon copy.

I think that aspect, doesn't need to be major, but it should be at least properly mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyty06 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My goal, is accepted by other Rihanna editors, is to make the article information, neutral, positive, with many valuable sources of reference (as i take great pride in finding & adding to wiki articles) and including the bumps in the road of Rihanna's career that effected any success or later change.

I'm working on adding key things & reference points and I hope that the rest of you can help make it even better.

Any issues with this? --Tyty06 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that NPOV does not automatically mean shoving as much criticism as possible onto the subject, all that does is create a negative bias. For instance, "Music of the Sun and A Girl Like Me were both disappointing in terms of album sales" According to whom? Is this a fact? Or is it someone's opinion? And if so, who's opinion? If you are comparing Rihanna to the List of best-selling music artists, then yes, some might consider those sales to be a disappointment. If you compare her to artists who have failed to even chart the Billboard 200 or receive any kind of certification, one might consider her a superstar. While we should take time to Avoid peacock terms, we should also be extremely cautious to give criticism Proper weight in relation to the rest of the article and Avoid weasel words which may give the illusion of NPOV but actually give criticism's more emphasis than they deserve. The terms "controversy and criticism" should NEVER appear in the heading of a BLP because these are words which frame how the reader is supposed to interpret the information, when in fact, depending on the individual, they may not consider information to be controversial at all. Micheal Jackson and Janet Jackson are good examples on how to deal with BLP that have "significant" controversies. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Great explanation, I just understood what you meant completely. I didnt realize my Barbodos header was a "peacock term" and I am happy you taught me so that I can be more aware of words. That is why I wrote how I felt in the discussion page, for other users to maybe fix the information I am bringing to the articles, as I not perfect. My ability is merely finding proper sources & adding what is appropropriate to help expand the articles. --Tyty06 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In terms of "disappointing" album sales. Rihanna's first album was definitely a commercial appointment. Anything that doesn't certify in the primary promotion of a country or anything that garners great publicity or merit on Billboard but doesn't translate into album sales is qualified as a failure. Especially if "Pon De Replay" went platinum, and her album sales didnt match up to the success of her single. That's just the way that it goes. I would only say that her first album was a disappointment, and first week sales of "Good Girl Gone Bad" was a disappointment, as her single "UMBRELLA" was #1 for 11 weeks, but her album didnt go #1. Not an opinion, its industry wide-spread knowledge, which is why you can find it in articles on Rihanna, in new york times etc,. Either way, doesn't matter to me, I just think all articles should be fair, equal, and un-biased and I found Rihanna's article to be extremely fluffed. For nobody to talk about the controversies in Barbados when that is a major factor to Rihanna's career, considering it is her home country, I found that should bias. --Tyty06 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, success and failure are in the eye of the beholder.

Test sentence 1: Music of the Sun was considered a commercial failure, only receiving Gold Certification from the RIAA, denoting 500,000 shipments within the United States.

Test sentence 2: Music of the Sun was considered a commercial success, receiving a coveted Gold Certification from the RIAA, denoting 500,000 shipments within the United States.

Test sentence 3: Music of the Sun received a Gold Certification from the RIAA, denoting 500,000 shipments within the United States.

Once again, by adding weasel words to the information, you are framing how the reader is supposed to interpret the information being presented. Unless you are making a direct quote, you should never imply anything and simply let the facts speak for themselves (Test 3). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue with "Public Image" Section

The public image section, located at Rihanna#Public_image, reads a bit too much like it's coming from an over-obsessed fan. This user wonder's if that is within the realm of acceptable/desirable information in a living person biography. Is it? Do we need to know every single fact about the woman, or should we simply mention she was a few tattoos, if even necessary? Are they THAT influential to her life story? Something tells me that you should be able to get a whole collection of similar information about Rhianna elsewhere on the web, like maybe a few hundred Geocities pages? (Hope I'm not dating myself!) Chris (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Relations with Barbados

This area needs to be tidied up, mistakes in grammer and wording.

Rihanna is heavily involved in the marketing of her native country of Barbados.[185] She began by including the flag and trident in many of her videos, also shooting her album packaging for A Girl Like Me there.[185] In September 2007, she became the official face of tourism for Barbados, being included in many of their ad campaigns. She is currently sitting as an Ambassador for Culture and Youth. She was then (any need for this?)honored with a national holiday in her home country (Already stated that it's her home country in the section heading)of Barbados called "Rihanna Day", on February 2008.[186][187] Regardless, In (Incorrect capital letter, or remove Regardless as it is not neutral or does not make sense)February 2008, Rihanna thanked her country and honoured them during the acceptance speech for her win of "Best Rap/Sung Collaboration" at the Grammy Awards.[188]

Although, Rihanna is heavily involved in the promotion of her country and works with the government in Barbados to do so, she is constantly criticized and ridiculed[189] for everything from her music, her successes and for wearing "skimpy clothes" From her music to what?.[190][191] Rihanna speaking on the incident stated, said?, ""I went to the beach and I had on a one-piece swimsuit with jeans, They took the picture and they made it look like a top that was really revealing. There were radio programmes about it. It was a big deal for, like, three weeks straight - talking about I'm not setting a good example."[192]

They who? also mentioned that Rihanna was too young for Def Jam to push her as a "sex symbol", making a plea that she cover up.[193] The media and National Newspaper constantly make personal attacks and have shown lack of support and encouragement.[194] Rihanna spoke out against the scrutiny to Entertainment Weekly[195] stating, "They all hate me. I didn’t have to talk about them. I didn’t have to even mention that I’m from Barbados. But I do and people kind of take it for granted. They hate me. They talk s— about me all the time. But I’m like, ”Whatever. I’m still doing this cause I love to do it and you’re not going to stop me".[189] Media fought back with letters to Rihanna publicly via there their national newspaper, "[what she said] sounds as if though she is doing us a favour. If God didn't give us a Rihanna, he would have given us someone else. So don't ever for a second get to thinking you are irreplaceable, Rihanna"[196] and "Her putting Barbados on the map is nonsense. Barbados was well on the map before she came along; and will be when she is gone".[197] Her mentor and music producer Evan Rogers spoke out to the media stating that Rihanna subsequently "formed her impression of any Bajan dislike from the reception she received at the recent Barbados Music Awards where," according to Rogers, "It was disappointing the way some people reacted as if they were almost rooting against her".[198]

That's just for starters89.204.226.194 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)theshortgiraffe.

Is it appropriate to include nude photo information in the BLP Rihanna

Based on the general principle of WP:HARM and Wikipedia:HARM#TEST, I would like input on the idea of removing the information on the alleged nude photos. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed because it is alleged, and has not been proven. 74.236.156.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

• It is now not in the article, which I think is a good thing. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} The proper term to referr to a person from Barbados is a Bajan (Pronounced Bay-Jan), a Barbadian may be offensive. So Rihanna is a Bajan singer.CeCe Musica (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Welcome and thanks. Do you have some reference which claims that Barbadian may be offensive? The articles on Bajan, Barbadian and Barbados suggest that Barbadian is the official demonym while Bajan is an informal colloquialism. Also, most of the hits for Bajan are using the word to identify a genre, such as Bajan food or Bajan music. Would referring to her as a Bajan singer suggest she is a singer of Bajan music rather than a singer of some other kind who comes from Barbados? Celestra (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of Rihannas singles

I've brought this up before, but how accurate is it to say that Rihanna has attained 5 number one singles when she personally has only had 4, as 1 of them was as a featured artist. I think it becomes important when the following statement is made "the first of the only two female artists with the most number ones attained within the 2000s decade", especially since:

Beyonce = 5 number ones as a lead artist. Rihanna = 4 number ones as a lead artist, and 1 number one as a featured artist. Fergie = 3 Number ones as a lead artist and 2 number ones as a group member.

It definitly raises the question as to when an artist is entitled to recieve credit for the performance of a song.

Crashforce (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she is only a featured artist and does not deserve full credit because it is not solely her single. However, it is not possible to know if the single would have reached number 1 without her contribution. Beyonce's 5 number ones could then also be up for debate as three of them have a featured performer. It would be misleading to say Fergie has attained 5 number one singles as an artist because the songs are not hers alone but rather hers and her group,which she regularly performs with. Perhaps is she was featured like The Pussycat Dolls featuring Nicole.

Please do correct me if I am wrong

Notlykthis (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Notlykthis (talk

Music Genre

I believe Pop should be first, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettino (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? For reference, the previous discussion about this was at Talk:Rihanna/Archive 2#Genre. Amalthea 11:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suprised only you and the bookkeeper resolved it. lol. Probably just two sockpuppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettino (talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see three other people in that discussion. In any case, if you think that we have it wrong, you have to do better than personal attacks: Present good and reliable sources! If it were up to me I'd throw out all genres from the infoboxes and lead sections of all singers and bands, or would keep them much more generic, like what's linked at {{Music genres}}. Details could be given with the albums, where they belong, in particular with an artist like Rihanna where genres can apparently be different from album to album, or from song to song even (I can only report what sources say, I don't know most of her songs myself). Concerning the genres in this article, I personally don't care one bit. But after much edit warring over the genres in the past, a consensus for a certain version was found. Unless she releases a new album or there is a new explicit consensus here on this talk page, they should not be changed, since that would quite certainly only lead back to edit warring.
So, if you have good arguments, backed by reliable sources (WP:V, WP:RS), put them on the table, and people can have a look. Otherwise, quit it, I've had quite enough of your attitude. Amalthea 12:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Upgrade

hello! I'm new to wiki and I don't know much so may someone please tell me how to go about making the following changes. I think it would be appropriate to add more pictures of Rihanna from 2005,2006 and early 2007 so that readers can recognise her better. The occupation section should be expanded accordingly (she is listed as having co-directed two music video, she has won a beauty contest so she's a beauty queen and she danced in her earlier music videos and live performances so she's a dancer). Maybe the section "2007-present" should be divided into two parts,2007-2008:good girl gone bad and break through success and 2009-present: Domestic Violence Case and forth studio album. More details can also be added to these sections. Also I would like to add to the article the part she played as a fashion icon in re-popularizing or helping re-popularize a hairstyle (if its relevent) and as a singer in re-popularizing dance music in the later half of the decade (Music in the 2000s)

thanks. Notlykthis (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles may only use images that are freely licensed or that have proper Fair Use Rational. Using images simply to decorate the page is not appropriate.

Winning a beauty queen pageant in high school does not make Rihanna a professional beauty queen which is why it is not listed as one of her occupations.

Until her fourth studio album is actually released, there's no reason to fill the section with hearsay per WP:CRYSTAL BALL. As of this moment, there's no reason to split the section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Splited Personal Life/Music Sections

I have splited her personal life section and her music section. For many reasons otherwise: It does not look good. It mixes personal problems with her music sections. It does not fit well. And most people like to check her music sections without having to hear about her personal life. Just like Britney Spears Article It mixes Her Personal Problems with her music and It just does not look good like that. Dont Revert For Reasons Otherwise: Don't Revert cause other articles look like that. It looks good like that and I would apprectiate if people would not vandalise my edits. Like the talk above me no one likes it like that from now on if you see an article like the one I just edited you need to split it. If you have problems with my edit or anything else either discuss right here or discuss on my talk page. If anyone agrees with my edits go my talk page. And put a reason you like this edit or just put yes or no. Thanks thanks. Sprite7868 (talk) 2:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Prior consensus has shown that there should be no separate section for the domestic violence case. You'll need a new consensus to split these sections. — Σxplicit 21:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just can't stand to see why it's there. It just doesnt fit in that catgory. I mean one second it's talking about her Good Girl Gone Bad album and singles with it then it's talking about her domestic violence case agianst Chris Brown. If I was new to wikipedia and reading that I would be like: "Hey its an article about her album, then I would be like I dont care about that. all I care about is her album not this". The First point of an article is to make sure the reader is informed about what they want to be informed about. All I'm saying it would better best be gone rather than letting it stay there. Or maybe you could restate the title 2007–present: Good Girl Gone Bad and domestic violence case . Or you could do what I would do just put it some place else in a different section, or make up a new section. Sprite7868 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Tattoo

In the "style and image" section the following sentence describes Rihanna's tattoos: "[...] an Arabic phrase on her ribcage area, meaning ‘Freedom is God,’ [...]" In actual fact the translation should be "Freedom in the Messiah". See this article here for the detailed translation: http://arabicgenie.com/blog/2009/08/arabic-tattoos-celebrities I would be glad if someone with more senior status here could change this section MuhsinShamal (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mononymous person

See also WP:MOSBIO

Mononymous person: mononym (MON-uh-nim) noun. A term or name consisting of one word only. For example, Madonna (pop star). [From Greek mono- (one) + -onym (word, name).] Example Hillary Rodham Clinton: The Mononym Platform "In an apparent attempt to model her marketing on the likes of Madonna, Beyoncé and Cher, Mrs. Clinton’s site proclaimed: “Today, Hillary took the first step ...” and “Send Hillary a message of support ...” and “Hillary is the Democrats’ best shot.”

Part of the reason this term is being used in this article (and others) is because a stage name is a pseudonym or fictitious (false) name (such as 'Prince or 'Sting'), which is not factually accurate in describing artists like Rihanna, who use their legal first name professionally. Not to mention the fact that using the term mononym is linguistically accurate. My suggestion would be to have the first line read Robyn Rihanna Fenty (born February 20, 1988), known mononymously as Rihanna (pronounced /riːˈɑːnə/), is a Barbadian recording artist and model. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the term is "linguistically accurate", it's a case of "using a big word when a small one will do" (google that phrase). It isn't necessary, and for the most part, will confuse the crap out of people. I mean, we can say that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the penultimate novel in the series", or we can say "...is the second last novel...". The latter is a heckuva lot clearer and more concise than the former. Ccrashh (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Confusing the crap out of people" is a fairly large assumption. I find the term to be pretty straightforward. Nor do I find it as pedantic as 'penultimate', but I honestly wouldn't have a problem using that term either. And frankly (using the google hit you suggested) I agree "The 'rule' of not using a big word when a small one will do leads to a level of mediocrity that I'm not interested in pursuing." More to the point, there isn't a smaller word that describes someone using a single name that is not a stage name. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I initially had no strong opinion regarding this question, but now that I've actually looked at the definition (and assuming that our articles are actually correct), it's clear that we can't use stage name, which is a pseudonym, which is a "fictitious name used by a person", which "Rihanna" isn't. A mononym is the correct term. The question remains whether we should use that word in the lead section if it's found confusing or distracting. I can't think of a concise English expression to replace it, so I only see the option of keeping it in, or circumventing it with something lame like "Rihanna (…), born Robyn Rihanna Fenty", and maybe mentioning mononym somewhere below. I can't really say which one I prefer, I'm torn between my desire to be understandable to everyone and not distract from the topic in the lead, and to be precise and to educate. And FWIW, I would have no qualms at all with using "penultimate" in any lead section.
As to what should be named first, the full name or the mononym, I have a slight preference for the full name. I would like however some show of hands, so that we can point to it later on if it ever again comes under dispute.
Amalthea 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the use of the word mononym, though I would word the lead as "Robyn Rihanna Fenty (born February 20, 1988), who performs under the mononym Rihanna (pronounced /riːˈɑːnə/), is a Barbadian recording artist…" I agree that the term "mononym" seems pretty straight forward. Even if it isn't, that's the whole purpose of the wikilink, just like stage name is also wikilinked across all articles (or at least it should be). — ξ^xplicit 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Rihanna (born Robyn Rihanna Fenty...)" is absolutely acceptable per the Manual of Style and obviously the best option here. Using the word 'mononym' in the lead is ridiculous and doesn't help make things clear - it is not a term used of Rihanna in reliable sources. In fact, the only mentions of the words "mononym" and "Rihanna" together I could find online were from mirrors of Wikipedia. The phrase "performs under the mononym Rihanna" is unnecessary.

The term 'stage name' simply means the name used by a performer - it is not necessarily a false name, whatever the Wikipedia article says. As far as I can see, the stage name article does not cite any reliable sources which specify that a stage name is always false - it just links to the pseudonym article. (Indeed the stage name article includes examples of performers using variations of their real name, as in Rihanna's case.) See, for example, the 25,000 hits here - [6]

And please, can we use the word "singer" instead of "recording artist"? She sings songs - that's why she's famous. Again this is about being clear and concise. She isn't known for recording songs, she's known for singing them - live and via recordings. --hippo43 (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Rihanna (born Robyn Rihanna Fenty...)" is a perfectly reasonable compromise (one I suggested myself over at Madonna for alternative reasons), however that doesn't mean using the term 'mononym' is any less accurate or less informative. Any of the three formats we're discussing could be deemed "unnecessary" depending on the opinion of the editor making the argument, but that doesn't make any of them less reasonable than the other two.

If you're argument is strictly what reliable sources use, then the google search you linked to provides none-only fan sites and various blogs, with the very first hit being this wikipedia. If you use the same search (Rihanna "stage name") within google news (which only provides reliable news feeds) you are left with absolutely nothing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also:

• The Free Dictionary: Noun 1. stage name - the pseudonym of an actor. anonym, nom de guerre, pseudonym - a fictitious name used when the person performs a particular social role
• Macmillan Dictionary: a name used by a performer instead of their real name
• Thesaurus.com: Definition: false name.
• Webster: Noun 1. stage name - the pseudonym of an actor. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't argue that using 'mononym' was not accurate, just that it's not a very common word, and there are much better, clearer alternatives. As for being informative, this article is about Rihanna, so should inform readers about her, not about the meaning of rarely-used words like 'mononym'.

On the subject of reliable sources and google hits, I didn't mean to imply that those were examples of usage in reliable sources (I don't know if you trawled through all 25,000, but I'd guess at least some of them were reliable). However, they do show, in the context of this discussion, that 'Rihanna' is widely seen as a 'stage name'. As for definitions of stage name, the broader, Macmillan definition ("a name used by a performer instead of their real name") seems to best reflect actual use of the term - Rihanna's real name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty; the name she uses as a performer is not Robyn Rihanna Fenty, but 'Rihanna'. Seems a lot like a stage name to me.

In any case, I agree that "Rihanna (born Robyn Rihanna Fenty...)" is the way to go here - it is accurate, NPOV, verifiable, consistent with the MoS, and has been a useful solution elsewhere. --hippo43 (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that using a single name only is a stage name. Most public figures (ex: Michael Jackson) don't bother using their middle name in there public persona, but that doesn't mean using only first and last name is a stage name, so why would that rule apply to only using one's legal first or middle name? Even by Macmillan's definition, 'Rihanna' is still her 'real' legal middle name, so I completely disagree it reflects the actual use of the term: a name used by a performer instead of their real name. My preference is still to use the term mononym - which by the way does not take any time or text away from the article to explain what a mononym is, since there is a link provided, just as the case would be with a stage name link. Anyone can write a perfectly grammatically correct and concise introductory sentence using the term mononym (which is no less clear since Rihanna and many other performers fit the exact definition without question as to its exact meaning: One known by a singular name). If other editors favor not using it, then so be it, but my opinion remains the same: there is no reasonable argument to exclude it other than personal preference. Keeping it is also a matter of personal preference which is why this all boils down to consensus. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So we disagree about 'stage name' - you could be right, but it takes us away from the real issue here. Using 'mononym' has some clear disadvantages - this isn't just about personal preference and consensus. As Ccrashh points out, needlessly using a big word is not helpful to readers. Using 'mononym' is also not consistent with policy (WP:UNDUE), or the Manual of Style in that very few, if any, reliable sources use it when describing Rihanna. As there is a perfectly acceptable alternative ("Rihanna (born Robyn Rihanna Fenty...)") using neither 'stage name' or 'mononym', I think the best solution is obvious. --hippo43 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I find exactly one RS for "stage name" and exactly one for "mononym". Amalthea 18:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's confusing and it tells us nothing - we can see it's one word! I had to look it up, like pretty much all other readers will. The only reason I can see for it being there is for someone to show off their vocabulary. --Tower (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That argument works far more effectively at Simple Wikipedia. "Mononym" is a quite straightforward word, and means precisely what a reader would expect it to mean without resorting to a dictionary, as "mono" is a prefix meaning "one", and "nym" is a suffix meaning "name" or "word".—Kww(talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in WP:UNDUE, nor MOS that would indicate using 'mononym' is against or violates policy. Its a single word (one which adequately applies to the subject without ambiguity) - not a paragraph or an entire subsection on its definition. And if we are to avoid using big words, we may as well shut down this site altogether as it would cease to be an encyclopedia. The first criteria for a featured article (a goal I assume is the end result for all article on wikipedia) is its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. That requires vocabulary higher than a six grade education; 'mononym' really isn't that difficult of a word to comprehend. If wikipedia articles were not meant to temporarily redirect the reader to other articles to broaden their understanding, links on this site simply would not exist. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should calm down a little. The MoS states "Unless there is some clear reason to do otherwise, it is generally a good idea to follow the usage of reliable secondary sources in English on the subject." In this case, reliable sources do not use the word 'mononym' of Rihanna. Per WP:UNDUE, the article needs to reflect coverage in reliable sources - so far, none have been presented which describe Rihanna as being a mononym. Why on earth would we include it in the lead of the article when no sources use it? Who does this help? It is not relevant to the subject of this article - it has no bearing on her career, work or life story.

I didn't say we should avoid big words, but we should avoid needlessly using big or obscure words when simpler words (or none at all) will suffice. Tower is correct - we can all see that Rihanna is one word! Using 'mononym' helps nobody, except some editors who want to use rarely-used words that many readers do not understand. If your intention was to clarify the point to readers, you might be suggesting something like "...professionally, she uses the single name Rihanna."

The prose in this article is nowhere close to "brilliant" - including the word mononym would be putting lipstick on a very ugly pig, and confusing a lot of readers who don't know what a mononym is. It is not "professional", when writing an encyclopedia whose aim is to help readers, to pointlessly use an obscure word which is not used by reliable sources of the subject, and which many readers will not understand. --hippo43 (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, that is a clear matter of opinion, not fact. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. And there's nothing in "...WP:UNDUE, nor MOS..." that would be against using words like "epicaricacy" or "saccade" either but the question still remains...why would we bother using them? Are we using "mononym" just 'cause "it fits"? How about "Robyn Rihanna Fenty (born February 20, 1988), who performs under her middle name only...blah blah blah." Clear, concise, to the point...without having people go: "er...mono...what?" And, of course, we are assuming that every reader who looks up "Rihanna" is going to know that "..."mono" is a prefix meaning one, and "nym" is a suffix meaning "name"..."? Right. Ccrashh (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And why are we assuming they shouldn't, exactly? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from all the articles I've added this term to, the only people who don't like the use of "mononym" are established editors who know what the word means. To me, that goes to show it's not really that much of a problem with our readers. — ξ^xplicit 01:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of whether readers will know what a mononym is, both sides are guessing - neither side can prove the point either way. It is relevant, however, that reliable sources on the subject have not chosen to use it, and there are various policies and guidelines which require us to reflect what appears in such sources. --hippo43 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Which brings us back to matters of opinion, there is no evidence using 'mononym' violates policy and as you've pointed out more than once, guidelines are simply guidelines, which can have minor variation at the consensus of editors involved. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Except the policy WP:NPOV (containing WP:UNDUE) which asserts that articles must proportionately reflect all significant views published by reliable sources. That Rihanna is a mononym is not a view that is widely published, so should not be in this article. --hippo43 (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

← Using the term "mononym" is no way in violation of WP:NPOV. "Mononym" is not a biased view of the name Rihanna. — ξ^xplicit 01:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not only apply to biased views - it refers to all view of a subject published by reliable sources. Reliable sources simply do not state that "Robyn Rihanna Fenty is known profesisonally by the mononym Rihanna", so we shouldn't be including it.

On the subject of whether readers will understand 'mononym', Wikipedia articles are intended to be understandable and accessible by a general audience of English speakers around the world. Many such readers will not have a very advanced level of English, so we use straight-forward language where we can - using rarely-used words such as 'mononym', unless they are strictly necessary, is obviously not ideal. It's for this reason that we don't have intros like "Robyn Rihanna Fenty (parturited February 20, 1988) ... is a Bajan vocalist and mannequin." --hippo43 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "mononym" is pretty straight-forward. Whether it's used by sources or not doesn't seem relevant at all, in my opinion. You're correct when Wikipedia is supposed to written to be understandable and accessible by a general audience of English speakers around the world, which brings into use of internal links. Per WP:BTW, Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. This is exactly why mononym is linked to begin with. Your example in the last bit of your paragraph is pretty extreme too, especially since parturition doesn't refer to being born, while mannequin refers to a display doll, not a living person. — ξ^xplicit 01:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It has fallen out of fashion, but "mannequin" can be used to refer to living models. Look at definition 3.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Or look at model (person). --hippo43 (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Except 'mononym' isn't a topic for debate because its factual. There is nothing specific to actually take a view point on. And NPOV doesn't have any strict policy or guideline on terminology. 'Vocalist' (one who vocalizes, which she does) is as equally as straightforward as 'signer' (one who sings, which she does) or 'recording artist' (one who records music for a record label, which she does), all of which are pretty basic-level english. The specific reason we do not say Bajan is because policy dictates we specify national origin, not ethnicity, and one can be Barbadian as a citizen without being of Bajan descent, in addition to the fact that her ethnic background is Bajan, Guyanese and Irish. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Except mononym is a topic for debate, hence the ongoing debate right here. You say mononym is factual yet haven't supplied a single source which states that Rihanna is known by a mononym. You are presenting a position that isn't present in reliable sources, a (fairly trivial) form of original research. That ought to be reason enough to leave it out. In any case, there appears to be no prospect of reaching consensus to include it, so this debate seems rather a waste of time. --hippo43 (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea provided The star tribune source, which, like the NY Times article echos the mononym linguistic phenomenon - among recording artist in particular - so its not a completely foreign concept, especially within the recording industry. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also a Wall Street Journal article using the term to describe her. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is your point? Do you actually believe that finding the term used in a handful of sources satisifies policy (WP:NPOV) and justifies using it in the lead? It is not at all widely used, and is, at least in the view of several editors here, an unacceptable choice in terms of clarity. There is a perfectly acceptable alternative (which doesn't include the widely used but contentious 'stage name') and still you are trying to insist on including 'mononym'. Is it really worth wasting time on this? --hippo43 (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer your first question, yes, I do. Obviously, or I wouldn't be taking the time to point it out. Secondly, Several editors? I count two opposed versus four seeing no problem with its usage. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I count three for each (Hippo43, Cccrash and Tower against the use, Bookkeeperoftheoccult, Kww and myself for; not sure where Amalthea stands in this). Hippo43, I think you have the outcome backwards. This article has used the term "mononym" for quite some time until you (or was it Cccrash?) first who removed the term. You were reverted by Jimarey several times. Clearly, there's no consensus to omit the word. — ξ^xplicit 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm the swing vote? A couple of things:

• WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE do not factor in here. It's not a question of neutrality, using a neutral word in an accurate fashion doesn't need to be approved by any policy I can think of. Well, WP:V, maybe, in that there needs to be a dictionary where this understanding of "mononym" can be shown as correct, but there wouldn't have needed to be an WP:RS explicitly naming "Rihanna" a mononym.
• Naming it farther down would be no problem at all. We are not simple:. We can use accurate lignuistic terms.
• Naming it in the lead has the only problem that it's a rather unusual word, which might go against WP:LEAD: "should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article"

It's a matter of opinion. I still don't really have a preference, but I do want to see "mononym" linked somewhere in the article. By default, yes, there should be consensus for a change.
If we can't find one, we might want to look for additional opinions at e.g. WT:LEAD. Amalthea 08:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I really don't care if the word is agreed upon. Personally, I think it's a terrible word to use, regardless of its "accuracy". Whatever the consensus, I will abide by it. However, if "mononym" becomes the word-du-jour on Rihanna, then it should be also used an the Raven-Symoné, Shakira, Tatiana (singer), Tiffany (singer), and a host of "mononym-using" artists/etc. I will look forward to seeing edits on every similar article post-haste :) Enjoy. Oh, I was simply reverting Jimarey's edits of previous reverts. I never noticed the word "mononym" before that. Ccrashh (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh...meant to link this so whoever takes on the chore of "correcting" every similar article on Wikipedia can get started. I mean, we want to be consistent, right? Here you go: List of one-word stage names. Some of these might be aliases and not technically "mononyms" but it's a place to start. Ccrashh (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ccrashh, that list is interesting - not all of the stage names listed there are false names, so there is obviously some confusion within Wikipedia on what a stage name can be. Presumably many articles need to be edited to clarify they are pseudonymous mononymous persons!

My point on consensus seemed straight-forward to me - this is the first time (as far as I can tell) that the word has been discussed here. There were previous versions which were stable for long periods and are perfectly acceptable within policy and guidelines. As this is now contentious, and the article has been protected due to edit-warring, it is important for us to reach consensus on an acceptable version moving forward. As there is not consensus for keeping the word 'mononym', it would seem sensible to use a version which does not contain it. As 'stage name' has also proved contentious, it would be sensible to avoid using it too. Fortunately there is a version ("Rihanna (born Robyn Rihanna Fenty...)") which meets all of these requirements. --hippo43 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree very much with your idea (since the same thing is used on Madonna's article). Ccrashh (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There reason for Madonna was an entirely separate issue (although if any article should actually be required to use the term it would be her's since she's always the primary example for its usage). And I would gladly correct any article on the difference between mononyms and and stage names for clarification: Raven-Symoné, Shakira, Tatiana (singer), Tiffany (singer) etc. Something that could be added to the existing guidelines if consensus is reached. I'd like to take this further with an RfC for MOS BIO guidelines. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection templates

{{editprotected}} Please add remark tags to the semi-BLP protection template, since it is at this moment not correct, and causes this article to appear in an error category. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Amalthea 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2007–present: Good Girl Gone Bad and domestic violence case

{{editsemiprotected}} On June 22, 2009, Brown pled guilty to the felony assault. In exchange for his plea Brown received five years probation and was ordered to stay one hundred yards away from Rihanna, unless at public events, which then will be reduced to ten yards.[67]

Change To: was ordered to stay fifty yards away from Rihanna

Note: The Source link (http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/22/chris-brown-cops-plea-rihanna-assault/) says fifty yards NOT one hundred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZJamaican (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Amalthea 10:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

New Section

There really needs to be a new section for 2009-Present because information on "Run This Town" is under the title: "Good Girl Gone Bad and domestic violence case". "Run This Town" has nothing to do with this and neither has her new album. I think that there needs to be a new section entitled: "Fourth Studio Album and Comeback".

See WP:CRYSTAL BALL. We don't normally report future events until they actually happen. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna's genre

No. This is not resolved. Pop is her main genre. I'm sorry but 'R&B first' thing has to go. Whoever thought of Rhythm and Blue being first needs to learn about music. Rihanna's Signature Songs SOS, Pon De Replay, Umbrella and Don't Stop The Music are pure pop.

I've reverted your rearrangement of the genres, as it always has been by several editors in the past. Prior discussion agreed in the order of the genres as they are and you need to form a new consensus before making changes. It's evident that others don't agree with your assessment and your persistent edit warring will only lead into another, longer block. — ξ^xplicit 05:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. I'll I'm trying to say is that Pop should (and used to) be first than R&B. How come people re-call Rihanna the "New Britney Spears" and "Pop Princess". Huh? Answer that for me.

• "A multiformat hit 'umbrella' is one of the fastest climbing songs a Top 40, rhythmic, and R&B/Hip-hop stations" Billboard
• "Contemporary R&B artists that have gained worldwide popularity are: Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Usher, Ashanti, Ciara, and Rihanna." Rhythms and Rhymes of Life
• "Rihanna, (born Robyn Rihanna Fenty on February 18, 1988) is a Bajan & Guyanese R&B singer with influences from Raggamuffin/dancehall and pop music music." Singing: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases‎
• "Let's start with the incessant buzz swirling around a fresh crop of of R&B talent...Tearri Mari ("Make Her Feel Good") and Rihanna ("Pon De Reply")." Billboard
• "The international sensation in the early 2000s is Rihanna (Rihanna Fenty, b. 1988), who specializes in dancehall and rhythm and blues. Music in Latin America and the Caribbean: an encyclopedic history
• "Rihanna is the rare rhythm and blues (R&B) diva to emerge from the Caribbean world. Contemporary Black biography
• "Thanks to crossover hits this year by Ne-Yo, ("So Sick", "Sexy Love") and Rihanna ("Unfaithful"), stargate is rapidly becoming an industry name. Billboard
• "Rihanna's music swings between pop, soft soca, and R&B." Ebony
• Despite the island feel of "Replay," Rihanna says, "Vocally, I'm more influenced by Beyoncé. My style is more straight-up R&B. [With "Ron De Replay"], the Caribbean flavor mostly comes in the beats." Michael Libby. Billboard. New York: Aug 13, 2005. Vol. 117, Iss. 33; pg. 45

I think we can take the word of professional music critics and journalists. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your question, Michael Jackson (not to mention a few other hundred artists) started in R&B, then achieved crossover in Pop, and continued to incorporate R&B, pop and other genres in all of their songs. And as we're all aware, MJ is the "King of Pop". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time but Pop used to be precedent before you came here as of February 2008. Proof:[[7]]

All that proves is that the article was not properly sourced at the time. The article has been through a lot of revisions since then by several editors. Reverting it back to a weaker article is not an improvement. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Weak article? Please. Let's see Early 2009:[[8]] You signed up in February, right? You're the one who started with the R&B being first. Why? Is that your favorite genre? Basically, Pop is her main genre. iTunes, her own Myspace and her ownself have identified music genre as "Pop".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihanna Knowles (talk • contribs) 09:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've been editing wikipedia since 2007. R&B is not my favorite genre of music. It is, however, Rihanna's primary genre, as I've proven several times over with reliable sources. As I've explained before using various wikipedia policies (such as Wikipedia:ALBUMS#Non-professional_reviews), organizations like itunes and MySpace are not considered reliable when evaluating music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Myspace and iTunes aren't reliable sources, and her own self seems to also have said that her "style is more straight-up R&B".
  As I've told you before though: if you have good arguments, backed by reliable sources (WP:V, WP:RS), put them on the table, and people can have a look. Otherwise, quit it. Any further edit warring over the genres without a consensus here will be met with a block.
  Amalthea 08:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) Well Acording to All Music" her genres are Pop, Dance-Pop, Urban, Dancehall, Tropical. Im am not going to go through her singles, genres just her main page one's.

(2) First let us start with her certain genres on her page R&B, reggae, pop. R&B is not her main genre neither is Reggae. She left Reggae a long time ago after her past album "Music of the Sun" She officially left reggae after her single "Roll It". R&B is not her main genre it is probably her second genre behind Pop Its been on a couple of albums like "Good Girl Gone Bad" and "A Girl Like Me". The one I most agree with is Pop more than anything almost every female artist is labeled as Pop.

(3) Most people think Pop is just a main genre for most people with softer beats and great vocals. Pop just means Popular and as most people including fans know she is really Popular with her music and news and her fashion. Ok now Im am going to start with the genres "All Music" said, Pop I agree with as said. Dance-Pop is a fusion genre of Dance Music and Pop Music it is a mix and fusion genres are not allowed into a template according to "Infobox Musical Artist Template" So Dance would probably be a genre for her cause it was on all of her three albums.

(4) I don't know about Urban nobody puts it on for artists but you can put it on if you want. Its kinda R&B with an edge. This Genre was on her "Good Girl Gone Bad" album. Dancehall was on her single Pon De Replay and on her album Music Of The Sun and Girl Like Me. And last the tropical genre is a softer version of Reggae is mostly on her first album Music Of The Sun. So I think I know why people are having trouble with her main genres. It just cause she doesn't have any. The Genres I have to say she is closest to is Pop, R&B, Dance. All of her albums have been expermental albums.

(5) Her album "Music Of The Sun" was more Reggae then her album "Girl Like Me" was more R&B and finally her "Good Girl Gone Bad" is Dance genre. Her next album is supposed to come out and apperantly she is working with altenative rock artists and some R&B so I don't know. Will just have to see her next album snd what it is like. Anyway's as I said her genres are closest to Pop, R&B, Dance.- If you have any problems or anything else just talk on my talk page or right here. All the things I said are summarized or talked through the us of the websites of Wikipedia and All Music.

• Ok then there is one from Freebase.com according to this Rihanna is at a range between Pop, R&B, Reggae, Electronica, Dance, http://www.freebase.com/view/en/rihanna/-/music/artist/genre

• Yahoo Music had under the catagories section. Pop and R&B Note: that Pop Music was first and not R&B.

http://new.music.yahoo.com/rihanna/

• MTV put "Rihanna established her dance-pop credentials in summer 2005 with her debut smash hit, "Pon de Replay," Dance Pop is a fusion genre so not allowed on artist page. But when you split them its Pop and Dance. http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/rihanna/artist.jhtml

• Rhapsody Music filed it under Contemporary R&B, Pop http://www.rhapsody.com/-search?query=Rihanna&searchtype=RhapKeyword

• Also on MSN.com it lists her genres as "Dance-Pop", "Urban", "Dancehall", "Tropical"

http://music.msn.com/music/artist/rihanna/

I suppose you can have the R&B, Pop but, can you get rid of the Reggae genre she's so over that genre everywhere I go there is no website that lists her as ReggaeSprite7868 (talk) 08:03, 03 October 2009 (UTC)

You should never use one source as your sole source of information, there are other reliable music sources besides Allmusic (rolling stone, blender, Q, NME, etc). More importantly what does Allmusic list under "Genre" for Rihanna? They list one: R&B. What other styles does she incorporate? Pop, dance-pop, tropical, dancehall etc. According to allmusic, her primary genre is R&B. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

NME: Rihanna moved to America at the start of 2005 to improve her chances of breaking into the lucrative US R&B market, working with Rogers and a number of leading producers on her debut album. "Pon De Replay" made rapid progress up the US charts, eventually peaking at the number 2 position in July 2005. The attendant Music Of The Sun featured a heady mix of dancehall, reggae and R&B tracks. NME After ten years NME.COM has earned a reputation as one of the world’s leading sources for music news Reggae is the parent genre of dancehall which is why we use it for the infobox. All of this has been discussed before, and is already sourced in the 'Musical Style' section of the infobox. We are giving information that spans her entire career, not just her most recent music. In addition, the article also uses music encyclopedias, not just web resources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dark Angel/Rated R

Rihannais releasing her fourth studio album Out this year.<br /. It plans to be released in November/December 2009.For her next studio album Rihanna is working with Kayne West, Justin Timberlake, Shontelle, Enrique Igleasis, and Jay-Z. The first single that Rihanna will be releasing is called Say U Will which features Jay-Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.241.238 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason we are not putting this in is cause this was going to be her album title before the whole incident with Chris Brown Most of her tracks on her nonreleased album "Dark Angles" have already been leaked on Youtube. So i'm not sure about putting on Wikipedia. Besides, you never know what could have happened. She might have changed her album name or who knows this is why we can not be sure about putiing it on WIkipedia. But if you have a reliable source or a couple of sources to back this up. I will be willing to reconsider putting it on Wikipedia. Sprite7868 (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

New Gun tattooes

This should be added as she got tattooes of guns thus by mainstream media is accused of glamorizing violence.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1164918/Secret-weapon-Rihanna-unveils-controversial-new-gun-tattoo.html

This seems to be the most appropriate heading to place my comment under, as I have limited experience with Wikipedia's setup. The tattoo section contains a redundancy where two of her tattoos are stated with sources cited twice. I would've simply removed the redundancy myself, but I wasn't sure if I could easily do that, since the article is semi-protected, and I'm not completely interested in getting a Wikipedia account at this moment in time. Just a big fan, really :D. --99.179.69.9 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Songwriter

Rihanna has written a song. she wrote break it off and she co- wrote her song on debute and sophomore album oh yeah and rihanna sings alto it n similar to mezzo-soprano but it can pick up on the low notes

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince jerrii (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 

Rihanna is not a songwriter why does it say singer-songwriter she has no credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.172.12 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that it states Rihanna as a singer-songwriter she is a singer not a songwriter she never wrote a song in her musical career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janay1988 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We're listing her among the writers at her albums though, see for example Music of the Sun#Track listing. Is that wrong? Amalthea 15:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Her name is listed at the end of the song list for music of the sun because she is a singer. She is not a songwriter if she was her name would be listed first or second not dead last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janay1988 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Listing Rihanna as a songwriter doesn't make any sense at all would you take credit for something you never did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janay1988 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be changed Rihanna is not a songwriter. Wikipedia administrators don't know what they are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janay1988 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't actually own the albums to verify, but Allmusic doesn't list her as having any songwriting credits: Music of the Sun A Girl Like Me Good Girl Gone Bad. And I know she said in a EW interview that she didn't mind not being a songwriter. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, she is listed as a songwriter on "Music of the Sun" :[9] and "A Girl Like Me" :[10] on the respective tracklistings on the all music website.Furthermore, she is either listed first or second on the writing credits. The aforementioned interview in which she said she didn't mind not being a songwriter was in refrence to "Good Girl Gone Bad". 41.182.227.101 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thanks! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Rihanna is a songwriter! Every person that has written at least ONE song, can be considered a SONGWRITER. She co-wrote:

1. Now I Know, Music of the Sun, Willing to Wait, Here I Go Again (from album Music Of The Sun);
2. Kisses Don't Lie, A Girl Like Me, Break It Off (from album A Girl Like Me);
3. Russian Roulette (from album Rated R).

Wikipedia has accepted the sources for albums' articles, but still doesn't want to list her as a songwriter. This happens many times with different artists and I want an explanation! Iggy Ax (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Wait Is Ova"

Putting this here preemptively, since already The wait is ova and The Wait Is Ova have been created: No, we do not know whether this might be an album title. We don't even know that it is pointing at an album release. The one reliable source I find about this tweet is http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1623762/20091013/rihanna.jhtml, which basically says: "we know nothing either".
Amalthea 23:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by several sources, not to mention her own website http://rihannanow.com/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.111.123 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All that says is "The wait is ova", with a date, and a fancy logo. Is that really the title of an album, or just a teaser that we should expect something? Is that really the release date of a new album? Or maybe a single? Or something else?
I've looked again, and no, I still don't see a single reliable source stating for a fact that this is a new album title and its release date.
And considering that we've proclaimed a couple of titles for her next album already ("Dark Angel", "RiRi", and what not) I refuse to just assume, even though it appears likely.
Amalthea 08:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Amalthea. If I created a website called "I_Am_Rihanna_For_Reals.com" would you then assume that this is a real Rihanna site? Could I then post any number of "facts" that you would believe are all true, and then post here on Wikipedia? How about "Twitter" - how reliable is a freakin' tweet? Is that really "Rihanna"? As for Perez Hilton - frankly he is a gossip mongerer. If you want to report "gossip", maybe you should start posting on a...oh, I don't know...a "gossip site"? Ccrashh (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, both the site and the Twitter account are maintained by her people, and can be considered primary sources. It's just that neither says anything concrete; they only provide enough material to get speculation going, as a marketing strategy I presume. Amalthea 12:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All true but does the fact that a website has listed a pre-order for the album with that exact release date mean anything??? http://www.play.com/Music/CD/4-/11850656/New-Album-TBC/Product.html. Seems like a credible source to me and worth making a new section - even if it just says something like "4th studio album: 2009 - present" or whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.130.239 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not much, I'm afraid. For an example, amazon.com has had various release dates of A Dance with Dragons for several years. At the moment, they list both April 7, 2008 and September 27, 2010. Meanwhile, the author hasn't finished the book, doesn't know when he's going to, and keeps saying that he too has no idea where Amazon gets their release dates from.
I agree that it is fairly likely that there will be a new Rihanna album on November 23. But all we have is speculation, and we have to focus on getting the information in the article right.
That doesn't mean we can't mention it at all though. In my editorial opinion, we can build a short paragraph (I wouldn't yet split it into a section) mentioning the statement, its coverage in reliable sources, and the ongoing speculations, since there certainly is some coverage about it (see http://news.google.com/news?ned=en&hl=en&q=%22The%20wait%20is%20ova%22, minus the blogs). This would go pretty clearly against WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, but I don't always agree with those, since I do think it is in our readers interest to sometimes have a focus on just those recent events. Amalthea 12:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on your comment, I may have gone against your suggestion when I rolled back a recent edit. You might want to review what I reverted to see if it should have stayed. Ccrashh (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've restored and rewritten the comment. I'm no authority on this though: If people disagree, I'm open to changes or to a removal. Amalthea 14:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. As I wrote in response to you on my talk page, it's strange. I clicked on the Rollback and it didn't give me the option of entering a description - I am sure I had a rollback option before that opened a reason popup which I could fill in. Either I have an addon that is conflicting or something else is wrong. Twice now I've clicked the just re-appeared "Rollback" and it simply...well...rolls back. It tells me it's complete and that's it. I will go back to simply "undo". Ccrashh (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do have confirmation. Rihanna confirmed herself on her Twitter that her album will be released on November 23rd 2009! Also on her album, it says 'The Wait Is Ova', November 23 9. So what else is it going to be, she's getting back with chris brown!???? EXACTLY, EVERYONE KNOWS IT WILL BE RELEASED AND IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. and it's funny when i want to post something it always gets deleted: like i posted that her album may be released on November 23rd and it was deleted. someone has put that now and it hasn't been delete. Wikipedia is not fair and i;m tempted not to ven use it any more, it's stupid! And also, i get accused of vandalisim, and treated like a criminal! I provide good, reliable sources and you just delte it so WHAT IS THE POINT!!!!!???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihannano1fan (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote and link, please. The only tweet I saw said the same as mentioned above: "the wait is ova", with a date. That's not confirmation! Again, I would ask you to have a look at WP:VERIFIABILITY. I don't know what they mean by ""the wait is ova", but in a Wikipedia article, we do not speculate, and we do not jump to conclusions (WP:OR), we stick to bare facts and conclusions that have been drawn by reliable sources. That's why it's OK to say now that reliable sources speculate about an album release on November 23 (which is a neutral representation of reliable sources), but it wasn't OK to claim a release date of the 23rd two days ago (no reliable source did such speculation then (retailers aren't reliable in that regard)), and why it still isn't OK to say that anybody confirmed it – nobody did, they intentionally put up a tease and nothing more.
The point is that if everyone would stick to reliable sources "with a reputation for fact checking", we'd have much more reliable articles. When you created Fourth Album (Rihanna) a while ago, you didn't stick to reliable sources and claimed that it was "due to be released in the Summer of 2009", which turned out to be false. Amalthea 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To Rihannano1fan - I understand your frustration. But, for you, it's stemming from not understanding what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. We know you are making good faith edits, which is why you haven't been blocked from editing. Your edits aren't necessarily vandalism, but they appear as such because you keep making them in spite of warnings. Please, be patient, understand, and research. Ccrashh (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New Section

Why is information on "Run This Town' and Rihanna's Fourth Album in the section: '2007-present : Good Girl Gone Bad and domestic violence case'? It doesn't come under any of that! There needs to be a new section now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihannano1fan (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Image Nm_Rihanna_090505_ssv.jpg

This image was taken by ABC new' official website and is copyrighted by Getty Images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihanna Knowles (talk • contribs) 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And that is exactly why it is impossible to use it on Wikipedia. It is copyrighted, it isn't released under a free license, and we can not make a claim of fair use in this case. Amalthea 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Navbox

There was a discussion at Template talk:Rihanna a while ago about the structure of the navbox, but it died down due to lack of input. Discussion was about grouping the songs per album, i.e. from this to this. If anyone has an opinion, pleace voice it over there.
Thanks, Amalthea 10:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In the style section

Rihanna's image has also been identified as a sex symbol. Regal of the Associated Content stated that Rihanna quickly garnered a more mature and definitely sexier look. In 2007, she ranked #8 in Maxim's 2007 Hot 100 list;[136] she then ranked #15 on 2008 Hot 100 list the following year.[137] In June 2007, Rihanna was named 2007 Venus Breeze’s “Celebrity Legs Of A Goddess” by Gillette.[138] Margeaux Watson of Entertainment Weekly wrote an article entitled "Rihanna: Diva of the year" which he refers to her breakout success of 2008.[139] In 2009, Maxim awarded Rihanna as the number 8th most sexiest woman on earth.[140] This made Rihanna the only female of African descent in the top ten or top twenty for that matter.

She's not African. Alreadytaken4536 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

date of birth is wrong

Rihanna was born in 1988 she is 21 years old not 20 Shashachenchen (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 30/11/2009

Thanks, it has been changed. Amalthea 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense about she's 21 and suppose to be 20 now thats just crazy

Eh, no. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Lampman (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction

2009–present: Domestic violence case and Rated R

On October 31, 2009, it was announced by The National.[81] that Rihanna would be appearing at a New Year's Eve concert in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Rihanna was originally scheduled to perform in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, on May 28 that same year but cancelled due to personal reasons. Rihanna will be performing in the Emirates Palace in Abu Dhabi on the 31st of December 2009, and it has been reported that the songs to be sung will be a mix of her new album "Rated R" and also some of her previous hits. Al Braik Investments & AEG Live are the main sponsors of the event.

Jay-Z to Perform With Rihanna and Premiere the First Music Video of the Decade, his "On To The Next One" During "NBC's New Year's Eve With Carson Daly" Guest guitarist Nuno Bettencourt.

http://www.nbc.com/news/2009/12/22/jay-z-to-perform-with-rihanna-and-premiere-the-first-music-video-of-the-decade-his-on-to-the-next-on/

Pwferret (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction to number of US #1 hot 100 songs

"Rihanna has attained five Hot 100 number one singles, becoming the first of two female artists, joint with Beyoncé Knowles, with the most number ones attained within the 2000s."

In the pages lead section it states (above) that Rihanna has had five #1 US hot 100 singles, but Rihanna has only had four (Take a Bow; Disturbia; SOS ; Umbrella) songs because songs that she is listed as a featured artist on (Live Your Life - T.I. feat. Rihanna) that peaked at #1 aren't credited to her but rather T.I. so it should be changed, I'd do it myself but since I'm not a routine editor on this page I think it would be better to gain 100% consent from other editors. Ashley92995 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MOST NO. 1 SONGS: 7-Usher; 5- Rihanna; 5-Beyoncé. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Genres

Starting this discussion because a user was not happy with the genres being listed as "R&B, pop, reggae" instead of "R&B, reggae, pop" and an edit war over such an arrangement would be silly. I don't feel that reggae should be listed before pop as the latter is more prevalent in the artist's music. Reggae was prevalent on the artist's first album and partially on her second; from 2008 to present, only influences have been present. R&B and pop have been the artist's main genres since her second album and influences were also present on her first. The artist is more known for her contributions to those two genres than to reggae, which is why they should be listed first. How do other editors feel about this proposal? –Chase (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The main genres are R&B, hip hop, reggae, and then pop. In another discussion the order was R&B, reggae and pop. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a new discussion, to gain new consensus. Very few references can be found to support that Rihanna is a reggae singer, all I managed to find was her allmusic page which lists reggae after pop, and lists both as styles under the main genre R&B. On the other hand, more references can be found describing Rihanna as pop and R&B (for pop, ghits for: rihanna "pop singer", rihanna "pop star"; for R&B, ghits for: rihanna "r&b singer"). The most ghits seem to be found supporting that Rihanna is R&B, then pop, and I only found that allmusic source supporting reggae. Also, the well-cited section in this article discussing her musical style seems to have sources that support that Rihanna started out as reggae before moving on to R&B and pop. Reggae was only prominent on her first album. –Chase (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree Billboard - hip hop/pop. So, let's wait for the consensus. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus will be gained when other users come. This discussion is not just between you and I. And there are other sources besides Billboard; regardless, the hip hop genre is not even being discussed. –Chase (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've been watching this, and Chase, I think you're being extremely patient with a demonstrably disruptive user. Blocked 4(!) times for the same exact behavior (most recently for a month), he has returned to issue personal attacks and go right back to disruptive editing. A content ban for this user might not be inappropriate, as lengthy blocks haven't seemed to work. As he repeatedly rips off tags and deletes content from his talk page (never a good sign), I'm not sure what the basis for discussion and consensus means to this editor. Your proposal is, of course, correct, Chasewc91, and reggae is not what she is mainly known for. The source given by VVV doesn't even support the reggae listing he is "contesting"... Doc9871 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's my talk page, and we are not here to discuss my status, reduce to the topic of conversation. Actually, the hip hop is not being disputed, but if the source is reliable, why not add? Moreover, only objected because he had discussed the order of genres, and you come here and change without discussion. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I myself am against the addition of hip hop. The genre is not prevalent enough in Rihanna's music I would say, and the influences of it that are present in her music are covered by contemporary R&B which is already listed. But if more sources can be found and consensus turns to be in favor of adding it, I wouldn't have a problem with its addition. I'm not quite sure what you mean by discussing the order of food, but what is occurring now, Vitor, is an example of WP:BRD. I made a bold edit, you reverted it, and now we are discussing it. You do not own this article and others are free to edit in a non-disruptive manner. –Chase (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes, my mistake. For me, the hip hop genre is relative, since it is not practiced by the singer. And don't come up with this story that the article is mine. You altered theorder, and you hoped that no one contests? Please ... apparently you think that Wikipedia is yours. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You actually do seem to have a WP:OWN attitude with not just this article, but other Rihanna articles. What happened here was the order as "R&B, pop, reggae" (about a month before this discussion took place), you changed it, I changed it, you reverted again, and I've taken the discussion here. But that is not what we are talking about. Please, do not make this discussion off-topic. We are discussing the order of the genres. –Chase (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And you think that Wikipedia is all yours. You and your lovely friend started first, and not treat me like a fool because I know very well the rules of Wikipedia. If you want, change the order of genres, it's all yours. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I changed "without discussion", but, as Chase pointed out, I am quite allowed to comment on talk pages, and also to look into an editor's editing history, which is freely available to anyone, even if you delete comments and remove warning tags. I'm allowed to comment on a clear history of disruption, and I didn't comment on whether you were a good or bad user (unlike what you said to Chase) - just that you were clearly disruptive. I'm pretty sure this genre thing is a non-issue that is being used to engage in another edit war (which, VVV, you said you would do)... Doc9871 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing, read before you speak, and speak of the article and not me. Your history is also bad and I do not speak about that. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You said exactly what you said, and it's there for the record forever. I'm no angel, but I've never been blocked, and certainly not four times for the same thing. Telling other editors that they are "not a good User" is a personal attack... Doc9871 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a personal opinion. But talk about the article! If you want to discuss it, do it in my talk page, don't spoil the topic. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I further think this discussion should be "closed" concerning the genres. VVV said, "If you want, change the order of genres, it's all yours." so that's that, right? I don't believe this is really about the order of the genres... Doc9871 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blá, blá, blá, changed the order. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (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.

Signature

Is Rihanna's signature really that necessary to add? I thought you guys only did that to articles about politicians, is she considered to be just as important as them? I don't see John Lennon's signature on his article, nor do I see it on Elvis Presley's. Why is Rihanna a special case? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's because we have a signature image for Rihanna, even more than my reason #2, that Rihanna is currently "hot", and Lennon and Elvis predate Wikipedia. Isaw a discussion recently (somewhere here on WP) about whether sigs are useful/disirable/allowable/deleteable for BLPs, and I think the jury is still out. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Unfairly" not NPOV

{{editsemiprotected}} Also, can someone cut the "unfairly" from "Some media even unfairly claimed that Jay-Z fashioned her to be a replica of Beyoncé" in the "Music and themes" section? "Unfairly" is POV. What is "unfair" is purely subjective, as some people might (and do) agree with those critics. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Good point. Actually, that whole paragraph needs attention. But "unfairly" is fairly gone. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PROJECT IMAGE

Every time I add images I realize I do not have the correct license. On Wikipedia, there needs to be a PROJECT IMAGE! In order for a Wikipedia entry to be as descriptive as possible, I feel images should be there to show a visual representation. I need everyone to find free images that have appropriate licenses for Wikipedia. There a a few entries: such as Rihanna that needs them. I added free images that are awaiting approval that came from flickr. Please help Rihanna's Wikipedia become as visual as possible. Thank you! Forever Kenny (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC).

New Projects

What Happenned To The Section Where The Films That Rihanna Is Under Going?? She had a very small role In "Bring It On: All or Nothing" which was her debut in film.

Now (2010) Rihanna has been taking acting acting classes for her first leading roles in the films, "Personal Protection", "The Last Dragon (Remake)", and "About Face".

Rihanna is also working on her fifth studio album. I see information about it on her page. I think their should be a new page for that album (TBA). Information like, Sean Garret, and Ke$ha working on it. That will probably be released late this year. or early next year. Ivanacosta27 (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)acostaivan27

No, we don't need a new page for an unnamed, non-existent album that may or may not be realized. It was mentioned briefly in the article that she was working on it, but the only reference was a entertainment blog-type site reporting that one guy was claiming how he had written one song for Rihanna's next album, and his song's gonna be great, his song's a killer, he's really done her a favor 'cuz his song's so fantastic, etc. I was not sad when another editor came by and pruned that out in the last week. I advise us to wait on reporting about the album until (1) there is one, and (2) we have at least a working title for it, and (3) something about the album makes it notable, and (4) we have reliable sources for all of the above.

Similar remarks about her alleged acting lessons (and the fate of previous mentions of her possibly-almost-blossoming acting career, since partially deleted). And did you notice this? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

i think he meant a new section on her page. Like about her new projects for (2010). Her rumored acting classes and film projects and the new album that 2 major artists have talked about. Not One. Ke$ha and Sean Garret. just an idea of mine. i check this wiki page every few hours for accuracy. and how many albums has she sold to date? that would be a good thing to add to this page.. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.230.116.59 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

dancer and songwriter?

Really? Are we actually going there. She has never been a dancer as was as obvious in "Pon De Replay" as it is in "Rude Boy." As a girl, I'm annoyed and offended that a girl gets to be labeled a dancer if she can kind of swing her hips.

Also, what song has she written? You people at wikipedia should know better. Being "executive producer" doesn't constitute her as a songwriter. Out of the 60 published songs of Rihanna's, Rihanna has helped "write" about 7. So I really think you need to take off songwriter as well. She may be talented but that doesn't mean giving her titles she doesn't deserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.206.200 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We call what she's said to be by reliable sources. In this case, if the albums published by major record labels identify Fenty as one of the writers for a number of songs, that's what we (can/should) include in our articles. I've seen the label for Rated R and she's listed several times.

As to her dancing, I can't say. But then, I'm not a judge on one of those star search shows. If sources call her a dancer, then it's appropriate for us to do so. If no such sources exist, und you feel the moniker is overdone OR based on her appearance in a video or two, be bold and make the change (assuming no contrary consensus here). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

She is always the last person billed as the writer of any of the songs on any of her albums. That means she probably changed a few words here and there but the beat and the general idea of the song was probably not created by her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D12cho28 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Herpes

I've heard many radio sources claim that she has been confirmed to have herpes & that it was a contributing factor to her assault by Chris Brown. Any chance of getting a true testament to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.80.161 (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What radio sources would these be then? How many is "many"?

All I've found after 15 minutes of searching the Web is rumor and innuendo. At best, somebody heard somebody else (Tila Tequila) definitely say she had it and that's why. If it were true, I'd think there'd be more written sources, and reliable people going on the record. What I've found, however, is mostly of the "Did Brown hit Rihanna because she gave him herpes?" (Shock! Scandal! Buy our paper to read more! but remember we didn't actually say it was true.)

I'd say we're best off not mentioning it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Associated Acts, Album Sales, and Film

I've seen on other artists pages that they have a list of assoiciated acts. Rihanna is associated with a lot of artists, such as Jay Z who has helped Rihanna launch her career and still does help her. Ne-Yo who has written alot of songs for Rihanna. Justin Timberlake as well. Kanye West, and now JLS who she will work with later this year. i dont know if Chris Brown would be considered a associated act anymore after all the drama. But just saying. By the way how many albums has Rihanna sold?? might want to add that to the page. Rihanna is also an upcoming actress who has been trying to get into film. It has been verified that she will star not appear in the film "The Last Dragon". 27ivan (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)27ivan

New Album!!!

It's been confirmed!!! Rihanna is working on her fifth studio album. It's all over MTV News. Sean Garret and Ke$ha are working with her. Its due sometime this year after her tour is over with. Not saying to make a new page for the album but it would be a great idea to add that in a new section with her latest projects. such as her "rumored" role in The Last Dragon. which is semi comfirmed, by the producer and director. Rihanna is a songwriter. She did help with most of the song writing for "Rated R". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.231.169.13 (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the source for this? Thanks. Acalamari 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1633065/20100303/rihanna.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.231.217.218 (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupations

Rihanna has not been given enough credit. She is a record producer, many recording artists have confirmed that she did help write many of the tracks on "Rated R" and did produce most of them as well. Rihanna should also be considered an author for her new book "The Last Girl on Earth". Please edit her occupations, add: Producer, Author, Dancer. Thanks :) 27ivan (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)27ivan

I think we should wait with the author thing until the book actually makes an appearance. It's currently not due out until September 14. As for producing credits, if you can find some reliable sources that she's done such work for other artists, or even on her own stuff, we could include that. As it is, she isn't even credited as producer on any of her own albums. And dancer? Is she known as a dancer? I mean I can dance, but I wouldn't expect credit for it (unless, you know, it's what leads to world peace and the saving of humanity). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The book is due June 29th. On the album "Rated R", Rihanna is labeled as the Executive Producer. Ne-Yo, Akon, Justin Timberlake and The-Dream, supported that before the album was released stating that she was taking a bigger role in the making of the album and helped alot with the songwriting. 27ivan (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)27ivan

The release date for Rihanna: The Last Girl on Earth has been postponed to September 14 and it appears that the title may have been changed (to simply Rihanna, imaginatively enough), too. Maybe she's still trying to finish it? From the Amazon page, it's less clear that she's the main author, although that could just be Amazon's sloppiness. As for executive producer, I won't revert it again if you add it, although I still don't believe we ought to include it in the infobox as one of her occupations. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i agree about the book. But she has been credited as a executive producer by her label. What defines record producer? the person in charge of the production of the album. Many interviews that Rihanna has done, she states that she really loved working on the album and doing more than just singing. 75.231.128.176 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)27ivan

New articles

I think we should begin to sperate this page into seperate articles. Even when you edit the page it suggests it, it's too long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

US Citizen?

Isn't Rihanna a US Citizen? if yes then please add an "American" to his nationality as well as Barbadian. --Arash Eb (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna is a citizen of Barbados but holds a green card for residency in the US, thereby giving her all of the protections under US law. 27ivan (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)27ivan

...and no claim to "American" (because of common narrow interpretation as U.S. citizen) in the WP article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If she is only a green card holder then yes the term American shouldn't be used for her. --Arash Eb (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, if she was to take a citizenship test and pass then we could call her a Barbadian-American. 75.230.162.144 (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)27ivan

Notable Songs

The following songs are notable songs because they did chart in a certain country. 1st. Let Me from A Girl Like Me it was only relaesed in Japan and reached number 8.

2nd. Breakin' Dishes from Good Girl Gone Bad was replaced by Rehab as the eighth single and reached number four on the US Hot Club Dance Play chart.

3rd. Wait Your Turn. Promo single from Rated R. Charted in many european countries. and a music video was made.

4th. Te Amo from Rated R. Charted in Brazil and Sweden before the album was released.

5th. Redemption Song. Charity Single for Haiti. charted number 81 on the US Hot 100. 72.19.52.61 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)27ivan

Image

I have noticed that the image section for Rihanna doesn't have anything to do with her modern image from Rated R. She is very famous for her current image and I think it should be mentioned. Thank youJagoperson (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life

This is just an idea of mine. Over Rihanna's 5 year career her personal life has been all over the internet and news. We all know what happened in 2009 that changed her life. But who did she date before "him" and who is she dating now? Well she is currently dating LA Dodger Matt Kemp. A couple years ago i heard she dated or had a thing with actor Josh Harnett. Also went on ONE date with Shia LeBeouf in 2007. Just something i thought might be fun to add to her page. Also about how their was tension between her and Beyonce. Because Rihanna was Jay-Z's new protege. Sources:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1611591/20090518/rihanna.jhtml

Go ahead and create this but please do not put in any rumors. If you would like to mention her relashionship with Matt Kemp then please do so but no rumors please =] x Jagoperson (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

edit that I intend to make to this article

I intend to make this edit... GOSS She said: "I won't just sign off somebody else's idea. I'll be part of the whole process." to this article. Is that ok? Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

RATED R There's says: Rihanna release Te Amo in UK and so far is 51, now is number 13!

Changes I have made

This is Syedwaheedhussain informing about the changes made in the page. I have given enough sources to justify my changes. Thank you. Syedwaheedhussain (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't someone change her name pronunciation? I've heard her pronounce her name numerous times, all sounding like Ree-AN-nuh instead of RE-ahn-uh (if you catch my drift). I can't change this because it is locked. Thanks69.168.201.42 (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Occupation...

"Singer, model, songwriter, executive producer, dancer, video director, philanthropist, cultural ambassador, author"

Exaggerate much? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The photo needs to be updated as Rihanna has red hair now. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Model ?

She did participate in a beauty contest, but when was she a model ? --KEN (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, she never was. The ref we currently have for that line ("18 things you need to know about Rihanna") doesn't mention it. Removing "model" from text and infobox.

Awards and nominations

I removed the two awards tables in it's section on the Rihanna article. It makes it look like that's the only awards she's ever won! those who object to my doing, can put it back on! ozurbanmusic (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna fifth album article?

I've created an quick draft Wikipedia page for Rihanna's next album which is more or less complete. I was thinking of creating a Wikipedia page but its a bit premature I feel as the new album has been speculated but not really officially confirmed and we don't know the name of the new single yet although I expect it to be released soon according to Rihanna's official Twitter yesterday when she said something like, "sometime in 10 days you'll heard something special". So a new page yet is premature, thoughts? Stevo1000 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna's new album comes out November 2nd and the first single "Only Girl(In The World)" is set to premiere on September 14, 2010. There is also other songs "Cheers" and "Adrenaline Rush" feat. David Guette. So yes there should be a page. Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaker565 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Stevo1000, you are right; it is premature to have an article for the album, whose name has not only not been announced, it hasn't even leaked yet. That's how premature it is. Also, your draft "which is more or less complete" lacks references; those first two sections have none at all.

Jaker565, no, there shouldn't be a page (yet). So far we've got about five sentences on it in this article. Meanwhile, it's unnamed, unreleased, apparently not even finished. When the singles become notable and we have good sources, then they can get articles, but the album won't deserve one before October, IMO.

See WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS for more thoughts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)