Talk:Chris Brown

Archives
2005-present

Feud with The-Dream

Why is this not in his profile. It has happened and on The-Dream page, it talks about the feud. I think you should have Chris Brown's side on this issue. Also what about the rumors of ###person Y###. At the end of ###movie###, he holds her picture and is seen grinding on her, leading many fans to suspect him having a crush on her. This should also be in the article along with the ###### tattoo speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.8.232.18 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation does not belong in biographies of living persons on wikipedia (or their talk pages, thus the edits to your question). Please review WP:BLP.

1. Alleged feud: If we have a verifiable, reliable source covering this, yeah, sure. If there is any question about the truth, no. This is a biography of a living person and more stringent requirements apply.
2. Rumors based on fan speculation based on what actors in a movie did: No, that's pointless. ACTORS in a movie are ACTING. If fans take this to mean there's a "crush", that's their problem. There is nothing of substance from a verifiable, reliable source here.

Mdbrownmsw 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Pro

This page is semi-protected for 24 48 hours 1 week 1 fortnight because of IP shenanigans. Any further chicanery will be met with bv warnings and enforced vacations from Wikipedia. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 04:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Numerous edits have claimed that Brown is this, that or the other religion or that he has converted from one to another. None have been sourced. Any future edits making any claims about his religious beliefs will be reverted. WP:PROVEIT. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Brown's MySpace page

Shouldn't his official MySpace page here be in the external links? DiverseMentality (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's his own, I heavily doubt anyone's going to object to you adding it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 08:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Math-A-Thon host

I just found out that Chris is this year's Math-A-Thon co-host. Should it be mentioned somewhere that he's doing charity work?Look here for the source![1]Abcw12 (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Personal" Myspace

Why does the link to the Chris Brown myspace read "Personal Myspace" when in fact it is a music myspace? Furthermore, the myspace in question is not personal at all as far as myspace profiles go. It invariably refers to Chris Brown in the third person and contains no personal details. It is entirely about Chris Brown as an artist and therefore the label "Personal Myspace" makes no sense in reference to such a thing. A large percentage of myspaces are about people and are very personal, so to refer to a myspace as "personal" is very misleading when in fact it is not personal at all. Any thoughts? 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Vyroglyph (talk)

Thought - You're nitpicking.  :) But, I'd say feel free to change it to the term "official," if you'd like. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

yea i kno its a small point but i was kind of disappointed when i clicked the linkVyroglyph (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

looks like someone already changed it and made it conform to the format of other myspace links so i'm gonna leave it aloneVyroglyph (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific campus where "Kiss Kiss" was shot

For the third time, I've specified what campus of FIU was used to shoot Chris Brown's Kiss Kiss video. It keeps getting changed back to "Florida International University" instead of the "Florida International University's University Park Campus" I've tried to specify. If anyone wants to dispute the campus it was shot at, please do it here before changing that information. Thanks. Digx (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NEW SINGLE IS -NOT- "DOWN"

In this MTV article put online yesterday it says down will not be the next single. A song called 'Forever' will be the new single. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1584056/20080325/brown__chris__18_.jhtml Someone change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.188.100 (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I rescind my comment; it's been changed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 05:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the page, and also created the article to Forever (Chris Brown song). Please add any all all contributions to help expand and improve it. DiverseMentality (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both Down and Forever are singles. Down is being serviced to Urban, Forever is being serviced to Pop and Rhythmic. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sony BMG MyPlay Artist Pages.

I work for SonyBMG and I'm in charge of Affiliate Services for MyPlay.com (SonyBMG's on-demand video music network). We'd like to post links to our artists' pages. Since the artists are SonyBMG artists and since I am a representative of SonyBMG, I do not think that there is actually a conflict of interest, but I have been sent an alert suggesting otherwise. Could someone please look into this and let me know, so that I may be able to gain a full understanding of the policy. I do not wish to create extra work for anyone. --EstSaka (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

By your own words, you're admitting to a conflict of interest, as defined by WP policy. Sorry. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

An argument could also be made that what you're proposing to add my violate WP policies against advertisement and/or spam. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: the conflict of interest is here at wikipedia, not at SonyBMG. We ask that all editors approach edits from a neutral point of view. By editing articles related to your employer, there is the obvious risk that you would (or would appear to) make edits in a non-neutral manner. For example, you are proposing adding links to a website you are affiliated with. Is this based on a rational assessment of what links are most desirable for those articles based on wikipedia's guidelines? No, it is based on a line of thinking that is more along the lines of "This website I'm affiliated with might gain some additional traffic if it were linked from several wikipedia articles."

If you would like to edit wikipedia, I would suggest starting with something you are interested in but that does not connect to your line of work or financial interests. If you comb through my edits, you will see lots of articles related to Philadelphia, music, social policy, a few popular diets, folk culture, an investment article or two and a few local history topics. Any guess what field I work in? A lucky guess is your only chance of getting it right. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dreamy

Since roughly 9/10 additions to the talk page and 1/10 to the article are vandalism of the "chris brown is madly in love wiht (insert name of 12 year old editor here) and is totally going to marrie her in teh most beutifil wedding ever" type, ANY unsourced additions to the article will be reverted on sight. As for the talk page, maybe we could add a section "12 year old girls who are putting 'Chris Brown' in hearts in their notebooks" and let them add their names? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it's clear that the threat of blocks for disruption aren't working, I'm about to issue a permanent semi-protection on this talk page. Enough is enough. Nobody here wants to know you're infatuated with Chris Brown. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Christmas In Washington

It says in the article that he appeared in this movie/show (not familiar with it myself) but it says his role is "TBA" this is obviously incorrect as it says it was released in 2006... Can someone fix it or remove it if they are familiar with this movie/show?! Nisior (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FA

This article is FA at the Romanian Wikipedia. Crokis (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Arrest involving Chris Brown and Rihanna

the LA Times has identified the woman that was abused by Chris Brown as Rihanna. This is a reliable source under WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). I am therefore identifying the victim. Magemirlen (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it reads alledged assault. There was a similar discussion Talk:Rihanna#2009 Grammy's. DiverseMentality 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's alleged until he's been convicted. I never contended that he was in fact guilty of the assault, just that an incident did occur. I worded the entry 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. Magemirlen (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that given the fact the Los Angeles Times states that police have named Rihanna as the alleged victim, it is appropriate to list her in the article as such.

92708S (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"while under investigation for domestic violence charges, following an argument with singer Rihanna in Hancock Park, Los Angeles, California. Official reports did not name the female in the incident but stated that she had “suffered visible injuries.”"

This should be changed to something like "while official reports did not name the victim, it was reported by ******************* that Brown was arguing with girlfriend Rihanna prior to the assault" or something similar to that. As it stands right now it sounds like it was fact that he was in an argument with Rihanna at the time but not that it was a fact that she was the one that got injured. If you are going to accept a report that he was arguing with Rihanna then you should also accept the report that she was the victim of the assault. I could be wrong (since I have not read much about this) but I doubt the "official sources" like the police acknowledged that he was arguing with Rihanna at the time but then refused to say that she was the victim.--T*85 (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This should now be changed to reflect that Rihanna was the alleged victim of the assault. The LA Times, CNN, and MSNBC have all identified her as the victim. Even though they use unnamed sources, this does not matter. Wikipedia users 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. "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) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I agree that Rihanna has been amply demonstrated as the victim of the assault, at least by Wikipedia's standards of verification. Secondly, however, I do think we need to remove the laundry list of examples of how Brown's career is in freefall. While emphasizing that he has been pulled from numerous ads in the wake of the beating is definitely relevant, citing each independent incident is an unnecessary level of detail for an encyclopedia article, with the possible exception of the awards show(s?). While I see nothing inherently wrong with such detail, including it on every Wikipedia page would bog down the important points, which in my opinion is what an encyclopedia truly aims to capture. Thoughts? - Drlight11 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting immediate removal of arrest from the article for BLP concerns

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, WP:BLP, and especially WP:RECENTISM, the information should not have its own section. This incident, however horrific, is not by any means, the sum total of Chris Brown's biography. Until the investigation is over, this information should not be present in the article. As an encyclopedia, we are not responsible for keeping the general public "up to date". Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, if one would like one's privacy to be respected, then one would be well-advised to avoid A) becoming a celebrity; B) getting a celebrity girlfriend; and C) biting one's celebrity girlfriend. While I agree that the spirit of BLP indicates de-emphasizing the incident in Rihanna's article, at least for now, Brown appears to be a shining example of how basic human dignitity can be overruled by basic human stupidity. While the "basic human dignity" subsection of BLP may be especially relevant to Rihanna, the WP:WELLKNOWN subsection seems more germane to Brown: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Domestic violence is a serious issue. Better that this stunt heighten public awareness of it than be tucked away for the sake of one celebrity's privacy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not defending Brown's actions (I'm quite the feminist, esp concerning domestic violence), nonetheless, the most reliable sources on earth (at this point in time) can offer little more than speculation. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM are the biggest criticism here as this case (for both Brown and Rihanna), as of yet, has no encyclopedic value being less than a week old. Also, being a celebrity or public figure should never cost any individual their right to privacy. On a very general level, I find the absence of journalistic integrity very disturbing in modern society. Rihanna, for example, was said to have used a decoy simple to get out of the hospital so she would not be bombarded by photographers. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Lastly, "Better that this stunt heighten public awareness of it than be tucked away for the sake of one celebrity's privacy" is a prime example of What Wikipedia is Not.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded soapboxish, but rules need to be applied with discretion, and I can't in good conscience apply the same standards of "basic human dignity" to both perpetrator and victim, especially when the same policy covering human dignity also has a clause (WP:WELLKNOWN) allowing us to be more blunt about, for example, human stupidity. I do, however, agree with your concerns about recentism and journalistic integrity, and don't think that the incident should be overstated. But I also think that BLP itself can be overstated, and that, especially in a non-paper encyclopedia that can be revised as events progress, eliminating the information entirely based on BLP would be to overemphasize his "dignity." Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your point of view, and I'd like to reiterate, I'm not singling out Brown, specifically, I'm a watch dog when it comes to BLPs in general. However, if we are specifically showing discretion this particular case, then I believe because domestic violence is a very serious matter, I believe the information should be removed from the article until he is officially charged with something. The worlds greatest news sources, including CNN, can still only offer speculation at this point, as the investigation is ongoing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It belongs, but keep it to the facts. You shouldn't have to devote more than a few sentences to it. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is more relevant and complies with WP:WELLKNOWN than WP:Basic Human Dignity under WP:BLP. Chris Brown is not the victim. Magemirlen (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the section was before, but currently it sticks to reliable sources and is presented as neutrally as possible. I would agree that even with reliable sources, alleged crimes would be inappropriate for inclusion if they weren't notable, but given the huge fallout just the allegations have had on his career, I think it deserves a short section. This isn't a short article on someone only known for one or two things, so it's not unfair to have a short, 2-3 sentence section on the arrest. -kotra (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the section is way too long, needs a serious trim folks. — R² 01:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Charity

Information about a charitable contribution that is planned to be made by Chris Brown has been inserted a couple of times. There is no reference that says it is. We shouldn't be adding planned actions to the article. It should only include what has happened. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What the?

I know the incident is too notable to ignore, and in no way am I suggesting that we do that, but the section describing it is way too detail-oriented. To go so far as to include what he allegedly said to Rihanna during the incident and where he allegedly hit her makes us look like TMZ, which we are not. If no one objects, I'm going to remove some of that stuff. And how come the talk page is protected too? Is the vandalism really that bad? Even Barack Obama's talk page isn't protected, and it undergoes reverts almost by the minute, because of vandals, spammers and soapboxers who insist on inserting their POV edits.--Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This article does get a heavy amount of vandalism. Different amounts of vandals attack different articles at different times. Obama's was a heavy target during the election, far more than this article, but vandals typically attack articles that have a high amount of press. As for the section, I agree it can and should be trimmed down, as it takes up way to much information in the relevant section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the irrelevant info, along with some unneeded references so as not to clutter up the page. While I was editing, someone created an "Arrest" section, to which I then reverted, because there seems to be consensus not to give the incident some undue weight. However, the case has yet to be resolved, so it's pretty clear that more info will be added, and that will further extend the section it is currently occupying. So I think it might be better to move the incident to its own section, purely for ease of editing. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This incident deserves both greater mention and a higher profile in this article. If events so warrant in the future then it could be demoted but the assault currently overshadows nearly everything that Chris Brown has accomplished. One man's "undue weight" is another man's "pertinent and relevant." Also, I'm not certain that the use of the term "irrelevant" is appropriate. Drew30319 (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not deserve greater mention or higher profile per WP:RECENTISM. It should remain as is, unless the end result of the trial proves to require a great deal more information, which I honestly doubt it will. Even if he is incarcerated, there is only so much all the news sources can actually report without consistently repeating each other as we've seen so far. Controversies like Michael Jackson's and Janet Jackson's have their own independent articles, but not their own sections within the main biography...and those gathered way more press than this incident ever will. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; and in any event the use of the sub-heading adds readability - the content wasn't elevated. Drew30319 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it adds readability. The current heading reads "Acting debut, Exclusive, and criminal charges". That covers all aspects of this incident. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this case (the assault on Rihanna) is what makes this guy relevant at all. I had never heard of him before. I suspect we won't hear much from him in the future either, as he is now going to prison. So the assault should be the main focus of the article. -- 12:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.196.159 (talk)

Just because YOU had never heard of him, doesn't mean he wasn't relevant. He had two platinum albums, won numerous awards, two number one hits (and multiple Top 10). This is NOT what makes him relevant. The assault is just a minor thing in his career that he will more than likely move on from (without prison). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.196.242 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 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) 07:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this, not true. It was a demo of a track called "Bad Girl" made last year. The Pussycat Dolls ended up recording the song instead which was supposed to be on the soundtrack for Confessions of a Shopaholic. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do magazines ever bother checking their facts anymore? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

Well since the price for not getting facts straight isn't as high for them as it is for Wikipedia, I guess not. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 06:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New PSA inspired by Chris Brown and Rihanna incident

I don't know if this is worthy of mention or not, but there's a PSA inspired by this incident where they re-enact everything that allegedly went down that night. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 19:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any third party sources connecting the PSA to Brown? Its notable to Brown is an outside source specifically ties him the the creation/inspiration of the PSA. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminology...

"Originally interested in becoming a rapper, he chose to become a vocalist when his mother noticed his singing voice." A rapper is a type of vocalist, as is a singer. He chose to become a singer. --152.3.141.108 (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)