Talk:Christina Aguilera: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Great Voice: Nothing to do here, it's not a fan site.
Line 94: Line 94:


I disagree. It just states the reality of it all. Can you maybe show an example of what your talking about to justify this a little more?[[Special:Contributions/125.238.96.175|125.238.96.175]] ([[User talk:125.238.96.175|talk]]) 07:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. It just states the reality of it all. Can you maybe show an example of what your talking about to justify this a little more?[[Special:Contributions/125.238.96.175|125.238.96.175]] ([[User talk:125.238.96.175|talk]]) 07:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== She is not bi-sexual (or atleast hasn't confirmed it!!) ==

I read the reference article regarding the recently added claim that she is bi-sexual. I have read the article and no where does she sate she is bi-sexual. Until we hear the words "I'm bi-sexual" come out of her mouth I don't think this should be added. From what I can tell it seems like her words are being twisted.

Revision as of 10:53, 16 June 2010

Former good articleChristina Aguilera was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 3, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 3, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 22, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 28, 2005Good article nomineeListed
March 19, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 5, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:WPCD-People

Opening Paragraphs

I think some changes should be made to the first three paragraphs of the article. It has been nearly 8 years since the release of Stripped and now it really is not seen as controversal as it was upon release. It was on a superficial level and I believe the information about stripped in the second paragraph should be removed. I think it would be best just to mention how "beautiful" was instrumental in helping the albums success and targeting a wider audience for the album. The controversy over the sexualized image is tabloid like and in a way is bias and I feel it should not be included in that paragraph. Removing that would make the paragraph more impartial. --Alextwa (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Add reliable sources and feel free to change the details. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 05:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it, done. --Alextwa (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Article Sounds Like it Was Written by Her Publicist

The Article Sounds Like it Was Written by Her Publicist. It does not sound like a neutral source of information. After a while it reads like a brochure for her rather than about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.215.186 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It just states the reality of it all. Can you maybe show an example of what your talking about to justify this a little more?125.238.96.175 (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is not bi-sexual (or atleast hasn't confirmed it!!)

I read the reference article regarding the recently added claim that she is bi-sexual. I have read the article and no where does she sate she is bi-sexual. Until we hear the words "I'm bi-sexual" come out of her mouth I don't think this should be added. From what I can tell it seems like her words are being twisted.