Talk:Chris Brown

Rhianna.....?

Shouldn't there a be a section on this??? 24.34.94.110 (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I consolidated the various references on this into a single section. Given the continued media focus on this issue, I really don't think this is undue. Until yesterday, the only thing I knew about Chris Brown was that he is a singer who beat his girlfriend badly and trashed the news studio. John2510 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

It is WP:UNDUE. That and my other reasoning for reverting you is below, in three different sections. But I have already pointed you to the specific reply through your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's and idea, how about both of you shut the hell up and get a life, instead of trashing his wiki. His new album went number one so shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.228.200 (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, IP and have fixed it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if his album went to number one? Is that supposed to make the women beating claim less relevant? If you want to make a contribution relating to his commercial success than do so in the appropriate section of the discussion page. 24.60.214.65 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above - the page looks like it has been white washed. You can't just skip over the part where he is convicted of a serious criminal offence and imprisoned. 81.96.176.135 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris Brown on Larry King Live about domestic violence incident

If no one does it before I do, I will add information about this. If someone beats me to it, I will simply tweak what I feel needs tweaking (if anything). I feel that it should not be too much, in the same way that I kept his apology through YouTube about the incident short. But there are some non-redundant parts about this domestic violence case seen in this interview: That his mother was with him during this interview as he talked about the matter and how he witnessed seeing her get beat by his stepfather when he was a child (though he has mentioned witnessing this before, it is different in this case), and his saying that he does not remember beating Rihanna; his saying that he does not remember beating Rihanna stirred some controversy (though we probably should not mention "controversy" since it was not a media blitz one), and Brown later stated that he actually does remember along with maintaining that he is not "that person."

I made this section so that we can all work out the best way to relay this Larry King Live interview. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not big enough to warrant a new section, I'd just say add a new paragraph to the domestic violence case section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is exactly what I am saying, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added the information. Any good tweaking of it is welcomed. I understandably could not keep it as short as the YouTube matter, and also chose not to put in most of what Brown said about the matter of why he said he did not remember assaulting Rihanna. He released a long statement about that, where he says the editing was off and other stuff, but all that is not really needed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to add a bit about his explanations of having said he does not remember the assault, I, however, do not mind. The only part there now about his explaining the comment is saying that night is still a blur for him. The reason I did not add a little more about his explanations of the "I don't remember" comment is because I could not see the best way to add it in without it seeming as though the information about the matter should have stopped where I left it at. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks good from what I can tell. The back and forth "I remember, I don't remember, its a blur" is a tad confusing, but I don't think that can be helped much. I think this is well written enough considering this article has not had a peer review so far. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown also added in that he rihanna are still in love, and she forgives him. Chris also will be having a new concert called,"Grafitti off the wall" where fans are welcome to come on stage and dance with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.167.53 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New (leaked) single - "Changed Man"

It's about time that we mention that single. Because I noticed someone created a redirect "Changed Man" to the album about Brown's newest album Exclusive even though the song is not included in that album. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it even a single? As far as I know, it was just leaked and Brown's label denied that it was his comeback single. — ξ^xplicit 06:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

it says "according with him" in one part of the article when it should say "according to him" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nametagnsht (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake On the Page!!

Under the section: "2009–present: Graffiti and domestic violence case" it says "according with him" instead of "according to him"

You should have just fixed it yourself. I will fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.70.6 (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

-Frank Quintero November 3, 2009 8:10PM GMT -5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.219.48 (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What may become continuous mentions about domestic violence case interviews

I know that the December 04, 2009 20/20 interview is somewhat important to mention, but I am thinking ahead about how many more times Brown may be interviewed about this domestic violence case. I do not feel that every time he is interviewed about it, we should mention it. The subsequent interviews will most likely be mostly redundant. Instead, I say that if he does a few more interviews about it after this interview or answers in-depth questions about it in some other way, then we simply note that Brown has continued to talk about the matter on separate occasions. Of course...if there is something worth mentioning regarding the subsequent interviews, then we should mention that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Quitting Twitter

Chris Brown has recently deleted his Twitter account. He later decided to to reactivate his twitter account, which is still activated to this day.

[[1]]

72.11.9.98 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Domestic affair, undue weight

There paragraphs and counting for the the domestic incident. The 2009 section is completely out of proportion with other sections of the article as well. Needs a substantial trim. — R² 13:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Realist2, I respect the work you do around here (I see you around), but I am not seeing how the information about his domestic violence case can be trimmed without cutting out the relevant details. To me, all that is there is relevant. It does not seem to be undue weight in my view; it is presented along with the information about his recent album, and has largely overshadowed information about his recent album...due to the fact that the news was mostly about his domestic violence case. The domestic violence case covers most of his 2009 year; that is on him, not us. Of course...I don't feel that every time he talks about his domestic violence case, it should be mentioned here in this article...as I already noted above. But the interviews currently in this article are his biggest regarding this matter, and we really do not need to include any more information about it beyond that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask something--Why is the domestic violence section merged with information about his recent album? This merging of two completely separate events into one sub-category is irregular and quite literally nonsensical. (I'm sorry if I'm not using the proper technical terms for the categories and whatnot).

Because the domestic violence case took place at the time of his Graffiti album...and so that we do not draw WP:UNDUE weight to that section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Flyer, the assault didnt take place at the time of the Graffiti album. He beat up Ri in February, his cd came out in Dec. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

He was working on the album before his assault on Rihanna, was he not? That is the point, around the same time. That, and the fact that the domestic violence case impacted that album and his musical career. Of course I did not mean "exact time." That section has the years 2008-09 in its title. That is my point. For more, see what I stated below, in the #section 1.4 needs to be reWritten : 2008–09: Graffiti album and domestic violence case section you created. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Also Chris Likes To Keep Alot Of Things Personal He Created A Facebook To Connect With Fans More http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/profile.php?id=100003482931076 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyquanv (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Title of article

I was going to bring this up earlier, but I pondered whether this was a big deal or not and then I got sidetracked: Shouldn't the disambiguation for this article's title remain (entertainer)...since Brown is more than just a singer? It can be (American entertainer). The word "entertainer" can also apply to the other Chris Brown, Chris Brown (Canadian singer). Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I wasn't content with the move myself. Both Chris Browns are singers, yes, but I felt the previous disambiguation fit better. Entertainer fit the American better because in addition to his singing, he's also an actor—something the Canadian isn't. Musician fit better with the Canadian better because in addition to his singing, he's also a multi-instrumentalist—something the American isn't. Just my two cents. — ξ^xplicit 01:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed Rambo's Revenge, the recent mover of these articles, of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got no preference on the disambiguation as I wasn't the one that moved the page. It was actually moved by User:Chasewc91 but the talk page was move protected so stayed where it was. On discovering that I moved the talk page so that they matched up properly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. The name of the talk page mover stayed in my head more prominently than name of the article mover at that moment, and usually the talk page mover is also the one who moved the article. I will go ahead and invite the actual mover of these two articles to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone could likely search for "Chris Brown (entertainer)" looking for the Canadian singer, and likewise, someone could search for "Chris Brown (musician)" looking for the American singer. Whether the "singer" remains, I really am not concerned about, but they do need to be disambiguated by country as "musician" and "entertainer" are not too far off in terms of what someone could search for. Just my opinion, though. –Chase (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Chasewc91. It seems that my suggestion is best, and that everyone would be okay with that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I finally disambiguated the title to American entertainer. Not sure what took me so long. Also not sure why the talk page doesn't move with the article, but another editor took care of the talk page move for me without my even asking...and so here we are. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

since mitchel jordon debut single topped

p diddys debut single also went number one in 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.11.136 (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Family

Hendrix

Coleman

Brown is the first cousin the Hendrix and the Coleman Family

Is there a source that proves this to be true? Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 20:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

#1 Fan?

Can somebody please tell why Millicent Rae is cited as Chris Brown's number 1 fan? As far as I can tell, this seems to be an act of vandalism as Millicent Rae is not actually a celebrity...somebody please remove this. Thomaszi (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done, how did this go unnoticed for so long? Amazing. — ξ^xplicit 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Yballer5757, 16 August 2010

change picture Yballer5757 (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please let us know which picture you would like to use, and which pic should be replaced, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

When should we create a Yeah 3x page?

I think it's basically been confirmed. The full version came out recently. (RealityShowsRock (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

It should be done now... official art is out too. http://toyaz-world.net/2010/10/chris-brown-releases-official-artwork-for-%E2%80%98yeah-3x%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98deuces-remix%E2%80%99/ SpeterMan3 (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Its already been created - Yeah 3x ozurbanmusic (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Mixtapes?

Should they be mentioned in the 2010 section? They were pretty big for him, especially with Deuces. —Preceding SpeterMan3 (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Change the pic...

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/hs007.snc6/165778_117118845025545_100001822898259_102626_2863437_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsasoul (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Louisargiero, 31 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} "Yeah 3x" was released as the album's lead single on October 25, 2010. The song peaked at number 15 in the United States and Canada. It also charted in the top five in Australia and New Zealand, receiving platinum certifications in both countries. "Look at Me Now" featuring Lil Wayne and Busta Rhymes, was released as the second single in January 2011. Most recently, it was revealed F.A.M.E will be released in March 2011. In support of the album, Brown will headline the F.A.M.E Tour, starting in Australia in April 2011. Brown also announced via twitter that his upcoming fourth album may be a 2-disc album, the second CD being titled Fortune.

Louisargiero (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done diff Contested information in a WP:BLP. possible non-reliable source. -Atmoz (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Need to add SNL to filmography

Chris Brown was on Saturday Night Live on February 12th 2011 and this should be added to the filmography section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiam8691 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Brown released his single "Take You Down" in January 2009 in the UK and Ireland.

section 1.4 needs to be reWritten : 2008–09: Graffiti album and domestic violence case

IMO/I feel this section needs to be fixed. It is not in order. CB assaulted Rihanna in February, the album came out in Dec. Yet the album is mentioned first(dec 9), then the assault is mentioned(feb 9), then back to the album. Chronology is important right?

I feel this section 's title should be changed, as the section has only 1 sentence about the album in 2008. The sentence "Brown debuted his lead Graffiti single "I Can Transform Ya" on September 29 as a digital download " is deceptive/unclear, as ICTY was released in 2009 not 2008.

There should be a separate section on the assault, then a section on Graffiti. If the assault was mentioned in the Graffiti (Chris Brown album) article I would agree with you. But to gloss over it here I think does this encyclopedia a disservice to credibility.

I feel their should be a separate assault section and graffitti section. Just bc they happened in the same year doesnt mean they need to be written about together. And the way the info is written about in the conjoined secio is haphazard. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The two topics are grouped together so that it is not a case of WP:UNDUE, as was discussed before (at Talk:Chris Brown (American singer)/archive 2#What the? and Talk:Chris Brown (American singer)/archive 2#WP:NPOV and criminal conviction), and because this is how articles on musical artists are usually done -- covering aspects that happened in the same time period, or close to the same time period, together. The domestic violence case had an impact on aspects of that album and his musical career altogether. As for chronology, we usually go by that, yes, but to start the section out with his domestic violence case disregards the fact that he started working on this album in 2008, as the section makes clear, before his assault on Rihanna, and it would put more focus on his domestic violence case than is already there. It seems better to go ahead and tackle the album and its sales first, before going into the domestic violence stuff, or mentioning the release of his album and other stuff out of the blue in a paragraph about his domestic violence case. But I did tweak that section to this, so that it makes more sense why we start out with the album information, and then lead into the domestic violence case. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the clear consensus on this. His domestic violence issue rises to the level of being a completely separate issue, and not WP:UNDUE. It's become a major part of who he is, from a biographical perspective. It has little to do with the referenced album, and appears to extend beyond it chronologically in any event. John2510 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:Consensus. Don't go around saying there is consensus for your version when there isn't. This has been discussed in the past more than once, and consensus has been for keeping the sections together. It is clearly a case of WP:UNDUE to do otherwise. In a section below, I stated, "There is no valid reason to highlight the section by making it its own section and separating it from his career efforts at that time...when it (the domestic violence incident) has everything to do with his career. It took place around the same time of that album and affected that album/his career as a whole. It makes more sense to keep all that information there in one place. Not to mention...to follow chronological order. Further, this type of separating (Criticism or Controversy sections in articles of living people) is advised against. The Michael Jackson article (which is featured) is a perfect example of combining controversy with career happenings, and only separates controversies when they are better tackled all in one spot; but notice how even then, the section (there is only one) made of only controversial material is due to the fact that his music career was on a hiatus and the controversies were dominating his public image at the time. Also notice how the material is still in chronological order, and how the title of the section does not include "criticism" or "controversy" (or some variation of that) in it."

Your reasoning for reverting to your version is weak compared to that reasoning. It seems you completely ignored this very obvious way Wikipedia works...all because, "Until yesterday [March 29], the only thing [you] knew about Chris Brown was that he is a singer who beat his girlfriend badly and trashed the news studio." Uh, no, Wikipedia does not work that way -- it does not work according to what you consider "a major part of who he is." Child molestation became a major part of who Michael Jackson is, and you don't see that article going by your logic. Michael Jackson is without a doubt more well-known and assuredly faced more ridicule for his scandals than Brown and yet you feel that Brown's scandal deserves special light?

No. I'm bringing in other editors on this, from the related WikProjects, since it is clear that you want what you want and are not for discussion before reverting or listening to valid reasoning.

On a side note, you could have kept this discussion in one place. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All due respect, but the dialog to this point is too long to read for what really ought to be a fairly simple discussion. The domestic violence issue should not be lumped into the article with a section about one of his albums. However, I also do not necessarily believe that it warrants its own section altogether. My suggestion would be to list it in chronological order with his albums as a subsection in the timeline. The only problem with doing that is that it would place the commentary about the domestic violence case in an odd spot in the article. So, a possible alternative would be to list the section as "2008-09: Domestic violence case and Graffiti album", covering the assault on Rihanna first and then covering the album. Or, another possible alternative would be to research the effects that the assault had on his radio airplay (speaking from firsthand experience as a Program Director who chose to pull all of his music off of my radio station at the time because of the incident and my audience's reaction to it, I don't believe that it would be that difficult to find references to write a separate section) and use that to create "2009: Domestic violence case", with an "Effect on airplay" subsection, and then continue on with the article by listing the existing section about the Graffiti album. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Strikerforce. I don't see how this discussion has gotten too long. It's only just begun. Unless you mean the section in the article. Though I feel that the length there is fine as well. But as for this discussion, as I basically stated before, as well as at the relevant WikiProjects just now, if the Michael Jackson article can combine controversy with career happenings without any problems, then I do not see why this article cannot as well. And it is because of that article, and other similarly designed articles, that I am not seeing how the domestic violence issue should not be lumped into the article with a section about one of his albums, especially since it affected the album it is lumped in with (radio airplay and sales). I like your suggestion of "2008-09: Domestic violence case and Graffiti album", covering the assault on Rihanna first and then covering the album... Although, he did start working on the album before the domestic violence case happened. As for making the section a subsection of the timeline, that would still be needlessly highlighting the domestic violence case, in my opinion. And I still object to having a section on it by itself. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things to consider here... 1) Brown is a convicted felon. As such, the subject should be addressed in the article. Do I believe that it warrants a section by itself? No, but it shouldn't just be a passing mention in a bigger section about one of his albums. Hence my feeling that it should be a subsection in the timeline. 2) For those who are not necessarily fans of his music, his notability may be for his domestic violence and anger issues, rather than what he has accomplished as an entertainer. While that may be OR, it is still a reasonable estimation to make and should be considered. 3) You mentioned Michael Jackson... as I've already pointed out, Chris Brown is a convicted felon; Michael was not. There is no clear cut, "cookie cutter" solution here. My thought is that there should be a subsection for the domestic violence and anger issues. I look forward to seeing what sort of consensus comes out of the discussion. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1) But it's not a passing mention in a bigger section about one of his albums. It takes up most of that combined section, having dominated his life at that time. These two things being related, and having happened in the same time period, it's only logical/natural that they should be covered in the same section. I see no special or valid reason for separating them, and agree with your suggestion to keep them together because of that (not the subsection suggestion, as noted before). 2) I don't view the fact that he may very well be better known for his domestic violence case (which I believe he is) as a valid reason to give special highlight to the issue. And 3) While Michael Jackson was not a convicted felon, his controversies far outweigh Brown's. Jackson was largely convicted in the public eye; many felt he was a child molester, despite never officially receiving the "felon" tag. It is only after his death, that his reputation gained some restoration. The point is that his and typically other Wikipedia articles of musical artists go by this same formatting style I am trying to maintain here. If this were an individual like Kanye West, mostly known as a controversial figure, instead of for mainly one controversy, then I would see the point in having the information divided. But, yes, hopefully other editors weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The relation to the album is coincidental. He didn't beat her because of the album and, as Strikerforce noted, this was a felony that continues to be a major focus of his media attention... not some minor incident. A part of the domestic violence issue was his reaction during the recent Good Morning America show. Tagging that on the the F.A.M.E. album doesn't make sense. I don't think we want to call it "F.A.M.E. album and more anger management issues." It seems to fit the criteria of your Kanye West analogy... multiple related issues. As an aspect of his "Life and Career" - it's a separate matter from his albums. Having it be a subsection of that section makes sense. John2510 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I ask that you stop making changes without WP:Consensus. Let the discussion play out first. That is how Wikipedia works. How is continuing to apply a version you want without working things out here going to solve anything? Also be aware of WP:3RR. You say that the relation to the album is coincidental. The fact remains that Wikipedia typically covers "coincidental relationships" together. If the controversy happened at the same time period of a certain career aspect, that goes together. Look at how most other Wikipedia articles of musical artists are designed. They do the same thing. I am not sure why you keeping insisting that Brown is so special that his domestic violence case should be separated from the section on the album, other than your feeling that he is mostly known for the domestic violence case and that deserves special highlight. Strikerforce did not suggest to make the section a subsection by itself. He suggested making it a subsection of the Graffiti album. You, in your most recent edit, however, made it a subsection under the Graffiti album without tying it to the Graffiti album. And the biggest problem with that...is that though it was in chronological order, it still did not specify a time period. It simply stated "Domestic violence controversy" (substituting "case" for "controversy"). And that is another reason why your edits are messy/sloppy/wrong. As part of his life and career, the time frame in which it happened should be specified in the title...just like all the other sections. This is one of the main reasons we combine these aspects in the way that we do -- the time frame. We shouldn't have "2008-09: Domestic violence" and "2008-09: Graffiti album." We should keep it in one place. And, no, this matter is not the same as "[my] Kanye West analogy." As I stated above, West is known for several controversies. Brown is mostly known for one. There is no "multiple" here. The Good Morning America incident has not been categorized as some huge controversy. So of course there would be no the "F.A.M.E. album and more anger management issues" section. What three editors are open to is having the title/information be worded/formatted the following way: "2008-09: Domestic violence case and Graffiti album", covering the assault on Rihanna first and then covering the album. So are you open to that? Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how Wikipedia works, and how some editors know the standards by name, but don't apply them to themselves. Wikipedia doesn't work by vote, but at least an equal number of editors have indicated this clearly should be a separate section. Regarding it being undue, a Google of Chris Brown + violence gets 18 million hits, while Chris Brown + Graffiti gets 11.5 million. It's a major part of his notworthiness. And... he's now had two violent outbursts that made national MSM headlines. In that respect, he's following the Kanye West model and a similar article structure seems appropriate. They're really only tangentially related to his music career - so they shouldn't really be in that section and a chronological placement is irrelevant. Maybe there should be a separate "controversies" category, an have his violent outbursts be subsections of that. John2510 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are still fairly new to how Wikipedia works, from what I have seen (such as not following WP:Manual of Style when you initially capitalized every word of "Domestic violence controversy." And I am an editor who knows the standards by name and also applies them to myself. As for "at least an equal number of editors have indicated this clearly should be a separate section," I don't count random IPs who stated something once and then moved on. And I still state that it would be WP:UNDUE to have a section about the domestic violence case in the way that you initially did it, a major part of his noteworthiness or not. He is not following "the Kanye West model," in my view, because the Good Morning America incident is not some huge controversy. And of course I disagree with your sentiment that the domestic violence case is "only tangentially related to his music career - so [it] shouldn't really be in that section" and "that a chronological placement is irrelevant." If we went by your logic/formatting style, then most of the Wikipedia articles of musical artists would be designed that way. But they are not. They are typically designed in the exact way I stated they are. We've been over this before, though, and I have offered a compromise below. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So... I capitalized some things wrong? Is there a recognized basis for you to "count" some editors, and not others? I'm not sure how that fits into actual Wikipedia policy, as opposed to some kind of repugnant personal elitism, but I've offered compromises as well. Consensus is this should be a separate section, as similar incidents have been treated for other entertainers with personal issues, but having it a subsection, as I structured it before, seems a reasonable compromise. John2510 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's like I stated above. You don't seem as familiar with how Wikipedia works as you stated. I'm not saying that you are such a newbie that your arguments are without any true merit. And I apologize if it came off that way. And by not counting "random IPs who stated something once and then moved on," I am stating how WP:Consensus is formed. WP:Consensus is formed by a group of editors getting together and discussing the matter and most or all agreeing to the same thing. You asserted that consensus was that this should be a separate section. I'm saying your assertion was wrong, as I linked to past discussions where consensus was against the section being separate. And there is no current consensus on the matter, other than my compromise proposal...which I have already implemented. And I've already gone over why I don't view the way you formatted the information as reasonable. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Just making clear that we have another editor who commented below and on my talk page[2][3] who is for keeping the sections together...but echoing Strikerforce's suggestion of covering the assault on Rihanna first and then covering the album. Flyer22 (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Should be kept separate under a different section. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Care to expand your position, Lil-unique1? You mean something like the Miley Cyrus article? If it's done like that, combining Image and personal life, then I could go for that. Even though the domestic violence case is as much a part of his career as his albums. This would work for you, right, John2510? Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not know there was discussion about whether or not to seperate the sections. But I'm with Flyer22, it should be like Miley's article. That way its not confusing for readers, since the controvery has continued in 2011 (GMA outburst). Ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Ozurbanmusic, I thought you knew from my post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music and from the section below where you commented. But I appreciate you weighing in now. I went ahead and designed the article similarly to Miley Cyrus's article,[4][5] even though I still prefer the previous design for this article (per my reasoning above). More needs to be added to the Success and comparison to other artists section, though, seeing as more can be stated on that (such as Brown's initial positive influence on kids), and to help balance things out. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just call me Oz (: I think the Success and comparison to other artists section should go to the lead section since there isn't much mentioned, plus I think his successful collaborations should be mentioned in the lead. And just call that section about the domestic violence case, Personal life. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oz, I made the Image and personal life section (which is the same title used in the Miley Cyrus article) to cover positive information about his image, as well as negative, so that things have the potential to be balanced, and to cover personal information about his life. Since the section also has to do with his image...then his success, successful collaborations, and comparison to other artists belongs there. The lead should summarize that, which is what I tried to do with what little information this article currently has on those aspects of his career. Once more is added about it to the section, more can be added about it to the lead. To only have a Personal life section and have it consist of only his domestic violence case, it would leave that section as nothing but WP:UNDUE. His personal life is not only about the domestic violence case. The Bookkeeper also has some good stuff stated below. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 and Oz. The domestic violence incident should be moved to Personal life section (maybe as a sub-section of the same). It is connected with his life, and thus fits better in Personal life than a separate section. Novice7 (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, Novice, and Oz. The domestic violence part of Chris Brown's personal life. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents as a general summary: As one of the editors who has worked on this article previously, I'm firmly against separate "personal life" sections for biographies under any circumstance as they tend more often than not to turn into WP:UNDUE and/or WP:COATRACK. Keep everything in chronological order (covering the assault first if need be) as per Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Aaliyah, Madonna (entertainer), Rihanna. See also: Wikipedia:Recentism:

Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:

• Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
• Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

Keep in mind, convicted felon or not, the relative historical importance of Chis Brown, as both an entertainer and as a felon is relatively small compared to the global attention received by Michael Jackson's molestation accusations or even O.J. Simpsons murder/civil trials. Unlike OJ (who by this point is relatively cemented in peoples minds as a killer and not a former pro athlete) I'm sure most people are aware of the fact that he had a singing and acting career long before his assault on Rihanna. Similar to MJ and even Ike Turner I'm equally sure most people - regardless of whether or not the enjoy his music - still understand him to be an entertainer will legal troubles and that is how the section should be represented. And just to be clear, I've never enjoyed/appreciated anything from Chris Brown, even before the assault; post assault, my opinion of him is less than tolerable. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What can I say, The Bookkeeper? I largely agree with you. Pretty much stated the same thing above. You may have stated it better. But if consensus is for my compromise proposal, which it seems it is, we have to make the best with that. We'll see if any other editors read your statement and reconsider their position. I'll contact a few more editors on this, and leave it at that (at whatever is decided). Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the (now current) "Image and Personal life" subsection. It takes it out of the discussion of his music (which seems appropriate), and it doesn't get lost/ignored among music or other topics. Personally, I think it should have a separate section, but I can live with this. I don't see a lot of merit to the "recentism" argument. That's the nature of BLP - You look at things in the context of the life to-date. Otherwise, you'd have have to wait until they die to write. WP is a living document, and it can be modified indefinitely to reflect current biography. I think the folks who want to minimize the anger/violence discussion are those who mainly have followed his music and career. There's a huge number of people out there (like me) who know little about his music - but know him only as the musician who beat the hell out of his girlfriend. Maybe that's unfortunate, but that's his current place in cultural (not just musical) history... IMHO. John2510 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John, you are largely basing your opinion on how the article should be formatted on your personal belief. The Bookkeeper and I are largely basing our opinions on the way Wikipedia typically works in regards to formatting such articles. I'm not seeing how Brown's domestic violence case was getting lost or ignored by being combined with the discussion of his music. People, such as editors, were finding that information easily enough. Not to mention...the domestic violence case partly discusses his music career anyway. And I'm not sure I understand your "die to write" statement, but... You say you think "the folks who want to minimize the anger/violence discussion are those who mainly have followed his music and career." I say, "Uh, no." We've been over this before -- the formatting of this article before you changed things is the way most Wikipedia articles of musical artists are formatted. It's the way most Wikipedia biographies of living people are formatted, period. I gave you the Michael Jackson example. The Bookkeeper gave you that and several more. I'm still not seeing why Brown's controversy needs to be given special highlight when Jackson's controversies aren't singled out in such a way in his own article. And I am most definitely no Chris Brown fan, certainly not after he beat up Rihanna. The Bookkeeper isn't either, as stated above. That's probably why The Bookkeeper isn't too interested in what happens with this article anymore. I cannot be a fan of any man who did what Brown did. I am not some flailing fangirl trying to protect Brown's image or something. If I were, I would not be the one who wrote most of the domestic violence case information, which certainly is not attempting to leave out any of the troubles for him due to that incident. There's no way to protect Brown/minimize the anger and violence discussion. It's out there, and the placement of the material was no less minimized where it was. People have eyes -- they can see, unless blind, mostly blind, or partially blind. The title "Domestic violence case" was standing out quite clearly in what was his "Life and career" section. I can argue that the people insisting that the "Domestic violence case" deserves special highlight are ones who not only think of Brown as a woman-beater but want others to think of him that way first and foremost too. But the compromise proposal works for me, per my reasoning stated above. And as stated above, I will contact a few more editors to weigh in on this matter. Maybe they will weigh in, maybe they won't. Whatever the case, I'll leave it at that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Applying the Michael Jackson page as an example of form, weight and structure (not that we should), his unproved child abuse allegations warrant two separate subsections of "Life and career." I think Brown's anger management issues are receiving proportionally milder treatment here. We're both applying our opinions on what will prove signficant and biographical about Brown. Consensus, at least pending meat-puppetry, is that they should be separately treated John2510 (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there are two child molestation cases to cover in regards to Jackson and yet those are not highlighted all in one section is exactly my point. True, there is more to state about Jackson's controversies (and the child molestation cases are not his only controversies), which would make a section on them a better case for WP:UNDUE, but that still does not negate the fact that Brown's domestic violence case/Good Morning American incident can be included just as easily with the career information. (And was.) In fact, it makes it easier since Brown is without as much controversy as Jackson. And it being easier doesn't signify to me that "special light should be given to this because it can all too easily be overlooked." But oh well. We have new consensus, you are correct on that front. I don't believe that any Wikipedia:Meatpuppety is going on here, though. None of the users who have agreed with my setup are new users, and they have reputations for working on music-related articles. But if you meant the two or three IPs who have stated that the information should be kept separate, I already explained above that they had no bearing on consensus. Past consensus was to keep the information together. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is better to unifie personal life and career for to have a better timeline in the biography. Furthermore, every event in the personal life has repercussions on the career in this case. Simone Jackson (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course I agree Simone Jackson, but it seems current consensus if for my compromise setup. Including an editor weighing in here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

1. This argument is TL;DR. Get to the point.
2. All important events should be covered in chronological order when possible. Creating a separate section is WP:UNDUE. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 12:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I know the discussion is too long, IHelpWhenICan. But it's long because this was debated for a few days. Debates generally don't stay short. What I stated on your talk page about it is straight to the point, though. It seems there is no clear-cut consensus on this, with four editors (including me) for the chronological bit, and four others (five if you count that link I showcased right above) for my compromise proposal. One, Strikerforce, is somewhat indifferent on the matter. Rather than having an edit war continue to go on, I decided to offer a compromise, which seems satisfactory for now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter

Since the release his album Graffiti, Brown has written and composed the majority of his songs, so I am changing him to a singer-songwriter. Finallyunderstood (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.11.128.249, 23 March 2011

Bianca Saucedo is Chris Brown's mother to be of his child. 173.11.128.249 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal Issues & Character: we need a section on this.

It is obvious, both by reading WP contributor's vies above, and by the way Chris Brown portrays himself in performance & acts in relationships & interviews, that we need a section on CHARACTER.

I wrote a brief one -- but it was incorrectly reverted, on the grounds of 'info already mentioned'. These facts are scattered; they should be brought together into a section, because they all reflect on the very same facet. 'Personal issues & character'.

Thanks.Twhitmore.nz (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I called it "Domestic Violence Controversy" - since that's the real focus. I'm not aware of other factual character issues that would be appropriate. Also, I think we want to be encyclopedic in terms of reporting his action, as opposed to a direct analysis of his character/personality John2510 (talk)

I have reverted back to the previous formatting, per #section 1.4 needs to be reWritten : 2008–09: Graffiti album and domestic violence case and #FIX THIS STUFF!. The IP's complaint in that latter section is one of the main reasons we have kept the sections combined. A sure case of WP:UNDUE. There is no valid reason to highlight the section by making it its own section and separating it from his career efforts at that time...when it (the domestic violence incident) has everything to do with his career. It took place around the same time of that album and affected that album/his career as a whole. It makes more sense to keep all that information there in one place. Not to mention...to follow chronological order. Further, this type of separating (Criticism or Controversy sections in articles of living people) is advised against. The Michael Jackson article (which is featured) is a perfect example of combining controversy with career happenings, and only separates controversies when they are better tackled all in one spot; but notice how even then, the section (there is only one) made of only controversial material is due to the fact that his music career was on a hiatus and the controversies were dominating his public image at the time. Also notice how the material is still in chronological order, and how the title of the section does not include "criticism" or "controversy" (or some variation of that) in it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Convicted felon" in the lead

Another editor has suggested adding "and convicted felon" to the lead sentence. I strongly disagree, as it immediately slants the article off of NPOV, in my opinion. It is covered later in the article and should be there only. The editor said - in response to my edit summary to the effect of since Chris Brown gained his notability as an entertainer, the lead should focus on that and not the felony conviction - "He may have started as an entertainer, but he is now most well-known for his violence". In my opinion, that is a highly inflammatory statement that can not in any way, shape, or form be cited (the statement about "most well-known") by any reliable source. I have asked the editor to open a thread here to reach consensus on inclusion or exclusion of the phrase once, but they did not do that, so I have started it, instead. Strikerforce (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.209.196.82, 1 April 2011

In the infobox where it saids Years active it saids 2005–present that should be change to 2004–present because he recorded his first album from 2004 to 2005.

69.209.196.82 (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done First CD was released in 2005 (3rd Quarter, if I recall correctly) and I do not see a source that backs up changing this information to 2004 versus 2005. Strikerforce (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

FIX THIS STUFF!

That domestic violence case should in no way be AFTER all his success of his F.A.M.E album. It should be before, in the order it came. Come on, it seems like you are trying to put the guy in bad light. This article says nothing about how he pushed through all that hate, scold and mess to get his first number 1 album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.228.200 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it, per #section 1.4 needs to be reWritten : 2008–09: Graffiti album and domestic violence case (above) which displays past reasoning for keeping the sections combined. Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Its good you fixed it, but why is the information about the Graffiti album before the domestic violence info? It happened before the album came out so it should be mentioned first. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel it makes sense...seeing that, as the section makes clear...he started working on the album before the domestic violence incident happened. But if the general feeling is that the domestic violence incident information should come first in that section, I am not opposed to that. It has also been proposed in the above linked discussion. Would you mind weighing in there as well, Ozurbanmusic, to keep this discussion/recent feelings on what should be done with that section all in one place? Flyer22 (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I think the domestic violence info should be mentioned first. The part where it mentions Brown began work on Grafitti in 2008 should be removed. I don't think its needed there and its probably mentioned on the album's article. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit!

Uhm just wanted to let you know that Exclusive has been certefied 2x Platinum. Here are some links to give you more info love :)

http://www.riaa.com/print.php?id=7F920A25-90EF-91C3-4A27-F64E7A443904 http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=riaa-news-gold-and-platinum&news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2011&id=7F920A25-90EF-91C3-4A27-F64E7A443904

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawtyHellaDumb (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.60.17.23, 28 June 2011

I am a record producer/disc jockey with a local record company named "Hitmission Records". We are the record company that is referenced in the wikipedia article that "discovered Chris Brown at a gas station" and forwarded him to then A&R of Def Jam Records, Tina Davis, who is his current manager. I am writing this update because we were not properly credited for our part in getting Chris signed to a major record deal.

Hitmission Records out of Richmond Virginia is comprised of co-owners Clarence "CJ" Jenkins, Lamont "Hit L.A." Fleming, and Jerome "DJ Hollyrome" Owens. Lamont "Hit. L.A. Fleming" was responsible for vocal coaching Chris Brown, writing the songs for his demo album and producing the songs for his demo album along with his partner record producer Troy Taylor (Taylor discovered Trey Songz of Petersburg, Virginia). The demo songs that led to Chris Brown's records deal included: "Whose girl is that", "Heart to Heart", "Now and Later" which were unreleased from any of his major record label albums but are youtube sensations. Lamont would go on to later write and produce the last song on Chris Brown's debut album with Jive Records entitled "Thank You".

Development history: Chris Brown (from Tappahanock, VA) and his mother Joyce Hawkins came to us (Hitmission Records of Richmond, Virginia) in 2003-2004, by way of a tape we received at his Father's gas station. On the tape was a rapper (Magic) and a background singer (Chris Brown). We fell in love more with the background singer than the rapper whom we originally wanted to meet. After listening to the tape we asked the rapper for information on the singer, Chris. We later arranged a meeting and got him over to our studio's to work on an album. This album would later serve as Chris Brown's official demo tape that would later be used to audition Chris for Def Jam Records. Hitmission partnered up with Mystery Records and owner Timmy Allen (Jive Records)out of New York, N.Y., to create a video for one of the songs on the demo "Whose girl is that". In the video you will see Lamont "Hit. L.A. Fleming" vocal coaching Chris Brown and prepping him on how to sing the song that he (Fleming) wrote. Timmy Allen (R.Kelly, Stephanie Mills, Change) former producer and A&R with Jive Records along with Hitmission CEO Clarence Jenkins then took Chris and his mother to meet with Def Jam president L.A. Reid and his A&R at the time Tina Davis. Reid's interest in Chris was lukewarm, but his A&R Tina Davis saw the potential. Although Def Jam indeed offered a deal, Tina Davis, Timmy Allen and Clarence Jenkins saw a better opportunity elsewhere. Tina would later assume management from Hitmission and quit her position as A&R to focus solely on Chris Brown. With the help of Timmy Allen (who used his connections with Jive records, being a former exec and producer) and Clarence Jenkins, a deal was consumated with Jive Records instead of Def Jam. Barry Weiss and Mark Pitts of Jive saw the potential presented by Tina, Timmy and CJ.

That is how Chris Brown got his start!

source: Jay Owens Power 106 radio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_MMinvhQbw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kttCgHHxlK0 http://www.youtube.com/user/LamontFlemWorld9247?blend=2&ob=5#p/a/f/2/kttCgHHxlK0 http://www.myspace.com/dj_hollyrome/photos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj1qesRujkg

74.60.17.23 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Already done The current version now has information about being discovered by Hitmission verified by reliable sources. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Footnote #23 Chris Brown Bio....Hitmission

Our company members cited in VA Vibe magazine 2005 were not properly credited. Thanks for mentioning Lamont Fleming, but also included should be: Clarence "CJ" Jenkins-owner, Jerome "DJ Hollyrome" Owens-Disc Jockey/radio talent, and Timothy Allen (Former Jive Records Exec). All were responsible for forwarding Chris Brown to Tina Davis , then A&R at Def Jam, and all were responsible for Chris landing a deal with Jive Records.

This information can also be verified and substantiated.

Thanks

source: VA Vibe Magazine 2005 page 7

       Brian Johnson  — Preceding ≈≈≈≈

unsigned comment added by Jayowens2011 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris Brown (American entertainer) → Chris Brown – Clear Primary topic. American singer: 333,894, 38,067, 38,067. Others: 3,911, 3,333, 2,284, 1,706, 970, 929, 788, 491, 444, 429, 386, 259, 257, 251, 250, 219, 91. Marcus Qwertyus 06:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Change – I agree, this Chris Brown is the most notable out of all the other ones. Oz ^talk 12:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The clear primary topic, as shown by the page view statistics. Jenks24 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I would say if we move this article to Chris Brown, we should definitely add a disambiguation template at the top. Because, as shown by Marcus Qwertyus, there are a lot of other Chris Browns on Wikipedia, and despite this one being the most famous (to us Americans), some people are bound to be looking for one of the other Chris Browns. Flyer22 (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, if this RM is closed as "move", then Chris Brown will be moved to Chris Brown (disambiguation) and a hatnote leading to the dab page will be added to this article. Jenks24 (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia should not be centered on what is popular in the U.S. There are other individuals named "Chris Brown" that are notable enough for articles. "Chris Brown" should be a disambiguation page. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And now that I think more about it, where would people find a list of the other Chris Browns? Would the disambiguation page be changed to Chris Brown (disambiguation)? It would have to be from what I see. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • To Strikerforce: those statistics are for page views from around the world, not just the US. I agree with you that Wikipedia's intrinsic US bias can sometimes be a negative, but I don't believe this is one of those times. To Flyer22: yes this should have been formatted as a multi-move and Chris Brown will be moved to Chris Brown (disambiguation) if this RM is successful. Jenks24 (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Chris Brown is a very common name. There cannot be a primary topic. This is what disambiguation pages are for. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Simply being a common name does not automatically exclude the possibility there can be a primary topic. Say Barack Obama had a common name; he would still be the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • A better example would be Obama which redirects to Barack Obama despite being a common name. Marcus Qwertyus 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Yep, the Barack Obama example was just off the top of my head (and your Obama example is a good one). Another one is John Howard. He is still the primary topic despite there being 24 bluelinks at John Howard (disambiguation) (in contrast, Chris Brown only has 18). Jenks24 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I honestly wanted to support this move but for the sake of being fair, I just couldn't. Chris Brown is such a common name, therefore it seems unfair to move this page alone into the namesake. I suggest that the page Chris Brown be left as a disambiguation page to avoid any confrontation. Peace. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 13:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Change. If the traffic overwhelmingly supports this Chris Brown, then of course it should be changed. Whether or not the name is common is irrelevant. If Adolf Hitler was a common name, would we have a disambiguation page? I think not. Metalb (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chris Brown

Chris Brown drew a huge crowd on "Today" show on Friday, July 15 when he performed for its Summer Concert Series. The R&B singer lured over 18,000 people to the free gig taking place at the Rockefeller Plaza. "The crowd for @ChrisBrown concert is now the biggest @todayshow crowd ever!" it was announced on the official Twitter of "Today". How does one get that added to his Wiki page? (168.215.127.2 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC))

Point us to a reliable independent source that discusses it or mentions it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Domestic violence case

At the end of the section it should be stated some of the relevant works of the victim on the domestic violence case which gives view to her stance on the subject, such as quotes from "I Love the way you lie" (i.e. It's alright because I like the way it hurts) and "S&M" (i.e.Now the pain is my pleasure cause nothing could measure, The affliction of the feeling leaves me wanting more and That's exactly what I've been yearning for, give it to me strong). Not that we're a court, but as a clarification the victim's mentality, it is highly recommended to put those informations in the article. Surely puts things in perspective.

H15 H16N355^{K1N6 M3} 21:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those works are relevant, neither were written by Rihanna. kibibu (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if they were, writing something like that would be original research with synthesis. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 02:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

ambiguous statement (cycle of violence)

In the domestic abuse case section, there is a line that Chris Brown's mother stated that she "does not believe in the cycle of violence." Does that mean that she stated that she doesn't believe it exists, doesn't believe it applies in this case, or does believe in breaking the cycle. I haven't seen the source, but it would be great if someone could tighten that line up. 24.90.158.174 (talk)DD —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC).

I watched the interview at the time it aired. In it, she says exactly what is stated in this article -- that she doesn't believe in the cycle of violence. From that, we can only infer that she doesn't believe in it. But I believe she meant "doesn't believe it exists" and was referring to "violent behavior learned as a child and then repeated as an adult, therefore continuing on in a perceived cycle," because that is how it seemed in the interview. I'd have to watch it again to be more certain. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

chris brown is a punk who thinks that just because he won a grammy he is what? Still a punk who is no good.. what an a hole. I guess just becausae he won a grammy he thinks its ok to abuse a woman. I hope his mom anmd everybody who is prourd of him is as happy as he is for abusing as woman I nhope that mAKES HHIM FEEL LIKE NA MAN. maybe this is the only way he feels like a man. Chris you seem like youb are real prouad of yourself. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A REAL MAN OR ARE YOUB PRETRENEDING> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.129.205 (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Till I Die (feat. Wiz Khalifa & Big Sean) and Sweet Love

'Till I Die and Sweet Love should be added as singles that have been announced by Chris on twitter under Fortune.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by HochyPokeyy (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought that they were already listed as singles!? OK, I'll check on that!! OZODOR (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Relationships section removed

I have removed the relationships section because it doesn't need to be used. If it was really told that Chris Brown had such a love triangle or problems throughout the relationships, I would have kept it! It only tells who Brown has been dating, but everyone is usually in a relationship, so what makes his special?! OZODOR (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of Wikipedia articles on celebrities have a section detailing their romantic lives, usually titled Personal life (although the section in this article is titled Image and personal life because it's difficult to separate the two in Brown's case), but there wasn't much in what you removed. By looking at the Domestic violence case section, readers already know that he was dating Rihanna...and the only other tidbit in the section was about a largely unknown model he is dating. The section previously had more in it, but that was removed because it was backed to "very poor conflicting sources. WP should just state the outcome when there is a reliable source. WP is not a gossip mag." Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting here that the Relationships section was eventually added back...but differently. And it currently looks like this. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nude pic

Hi everyone! Is it really important to mention the thing about the naked pic? It didn't make a fuss like Prince Harry's, for example, so I'm wondering what the point is of keeping that section? Did it affect his image? Lots of celebrities have had at some point to deal with a naked pic but is it worth mentioning it on Wikipedia? Just askin' :) --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned that problem about his naked picture because it seem to become viral, so I had to mention the incident of it! Is there a problem with me mentioning that?! The Smell of Magic 00:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its relevant. The section stays. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Death

Just got the news from Brian Limmy that according to CNN he's dead after a suspected overdose. https://twitter.com/DaftLimmy/status/240937295044284416 86.165.99.86 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Chris Brown is not dead, otherwise he would be all over the news and they would say he died of an overdose! Do you actually believe the person who mentioned that online because the news is where things really showdown!! The Smell of Magic 00:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Chris Brown (American entertainer) → Chris Brown (entertainer) – As that title already redirects here. Unreal7 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as there is also Chris Brown (Canadian entertainer) and propose changing the redirect for Chris Brown (entertainer) to point to Chris Brown. Aspects (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aspects. Oz ^talk 08:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RE: First paragraph and first line

Please delete the "convicted felon" text in the first sentence, as it is an unfair comment to add to this mans list of careers and talents. It does not see fit that it is only on his Wikipedia page and not any other famous persons. FadeAwayCasjun (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I don't know that it's unfair, but it does seem (1) inconsistent with many other articles and (2) jarring in a list of designations that are otherwise neutral. The lede quite properly does contain a summary of the felony and its aftermath, and I have split that off into its own paragraph. Rivertorch (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Move from "(singer)" to "(entertainer)"?

Hi guys and girls. I see the history:

03:06, 24 January 2010 Chasewc91 (talk | contribs) moved page Chris Brown (entertainer) to Chris Brown (American singer) (American and Canadian singers need to be distinguished with better disambiguation than entertainer and musician) (revert)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChris_Brown_%28American_entertainer%29&diff=340969020&oldid=339743807

(cur | prev) 16:23, 24 January 2010‎ Rambo's Revenge (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,890 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Talk:Chris Brown (entertainer) to Talk:Chris Brown (American singer): associated talk page move that was protected so unmoved when main page was moved) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:33, 16 March 2011‎ Flyer22 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (50,273 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Chris Brown (American singer) to Chris Brown (American entertainer): Per talk page in January 2010... Talk:Chris Brown (American singer)#Title of article. He's not just a singer.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:36, 16 March 2011‎ Xeno (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (23,031 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Talk:Chris Brown (American singer) to Talk:Chris Brown (American entertainer): join with article, no comment on propriety of move) (undo)

Okay, but where's the discussion that en.wp has such a category as Category:American entertainers or that "entertainer" is standard English in printed sources for a singer with a couple of minor acting credits? This isn't standard English. See "singer Chris Brown" gets 415x GBhits, "entertainer Chris Brown" gets 1x GBhit. This is an ugly neologism/stylism, and not per WP:PRECISION accurate English to describe someone in Category:American singers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was had at #Title of article, above. Flyer22 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Twitter account deletion

Are we going to pretend this never happened? It was all over the news. Too fucking many fans (read: neanderthals) work on this article. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the relevance of someone deleting their Twitter account to a Wikipedia article, may I ask?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nude photos

Is this seriously a section of this article?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Like I just stated in this edit summary, STATicVerseatide removed that section because it is "WP:TRIVIA. Not encyclopedic and contains no reliable sources," and I agree. As you saw, Vivaldi is the one who restored the material. Also, it's just one nude photograph, despite their obviously being copies all over the Internet.

In my opinion, the information about his altercation with Drake doesn't deserve its own section either; it didn't impact Brown's image or personal life in a major way. I'd been keeping the trivial information about the nude photo, altercation with Drake...and the neck tattoo all under one section,[6][7][8] because, as stated in those edit summaries, it's giving WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to have them as individual sections; they are trivial mentions that can't be expanded on much beyond a few sentences/single paragraph. This is a problem that often arises when having personal life information split away from the career information; a lot of our music biographies don't do this anymore, and it's likely that most of our WP:GA and WP:FA music biographies don't do this anymore. See the #section 1.4 needs to be reWritten : 2008–09: Graffiti album and domestic violence case section above; the only reason this Image and personal life section currently exists is because of the compromise that was made in that discussion. And people really need to stop adding on every little tidbit about Brown's domestic violence case; updates shouldn't be there. We should wait until his time is served, and then summarize all of that update information after that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Countless celebrities have nude picture(s) floating around the internet maybe a sentence in another section (as long as it is backed by a reliable source) would be good but its own section is completely unnecessary. It is all WP:TRIVIA, not notable and not encyclopedic.STATic message me! 18:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Album Title

His new album will be called "X". He Instagramed it before he closed his account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.59.12.70 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC) http://www.gowherehiphop.com/blogs/chris-brown-announces-new-album-x

Unhelpful disambiguator

This is a bit irrelevant since the article should really be at Chris Brown period, but "entertainer chris brown" gets only 143,000 Ghits, wheras "singer Chris Brown" gets, 6 960 000. Thats 48x as many, and 48x more familiar and probably 48x a likely search term (if anyone doesn't just search "Chris Brown" which is unlikely). Given that he's a singer not an entertainer, not helpful, and not following English usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

See the #Move from "(singer)" to "(entertainer)"? section above, where you brought up this topic previously and I replied. He's not just a singer, but also a dancer and actor, so "entertainer" does fit. But I understand what you mean about people not usually thinking of the word "entertainer" when they think of Chris Brown. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

CHANGE THE ALBUM TITLE

The name of the album was changed to "X". http://rapfix.mtv.com/2012/11/27/did-chris-brown-just-instagram-a-new-album-title/ 99.155.21.116 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor has taken care of the matter. See here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2013

COUPLE: Rihanna 190.28.245.125 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please specify what you would like to be changed. STATic message me! 21:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Plagarism controversy

Chris Brown has been accused of plagarism, the link to the report is on his X (Album) wiki. Please look it up. Oh and by the way I want to propose a new section detailing the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.136.5.36 (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus -- tariqabjotu 04:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Chris Brown (American entertainer) → Chris Brown (American singer) – the term "entertainer" appears to be a WP:HONORIFIC in some parts of the music industry. But Chris Brown does not meet the usual meaning of entertainer as an all round vaudeville or Las Vegas style performer. He doesn't do stand up comedy, he doesn't do magic tricks, he doesn't have a drag act, and he has only a few supporting acting roles. In short he's a singer. "the singer Chris Brown" gets 188 results in English books. "the entertainer Chris Brown" gets zero results. Most of the other singer articles have already been moved/returned to (singer). --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 19:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• No move. I've responded to you about this twice now, at #Move from "(singer)" to "(entertainer)"? and at #Unhelpful disambiguator. You didn't reply either of those times, and now, as seen, you have finally started an official move request. Like I stated in the "Unhelpful disambiguator" section, "[Chris Brown's] not just a singer, but also a dancer and actor, so 'entertainer' does fit." It is not an honorific in this case. It was chosen as a more accurate description for his career. I'm also not sure what you mean by "Most of the other singer articles have already been moved/returned to (singer)." I doubt that many other Wikipedia articles about singers were disambiguated with "entertainer." That stated, I don't mind much if "singer" is used instead of "entertainer" in the case of titling Chris Brown's article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. It's not unusual to gauge local consensus on the Talk page before a RM. As regards your move 16 March 2011‎ Chris Brown (Canadian singer) to Chris Brown (Canadian entertainer) a RM moved it away from (Canadian entertainer) to Chris Brown (Canadian musician) last week. The entertainer dab really needs to be reserved for where WP:RS use such a title by WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you requested that move? It must have been listed in the "Technical requests" section instead of in the "Contested technical requests" section, considering that there is no discussion on the article's talk page about it. That move is accurate; it was not changed back to the disambiguator "singer," which is not too accurate with regard to his career. By contrast, you are arguing to replace "entertainer" with "singer" for this Chris Brown article...even though that is less accurate than "entertainer" in this case. Part of what WP:CRITERIA argues for is precision. The disambiguator "entertainer" is more precise than the disambiguator "singer" in this case, especially considering that Brown plans to keep building his acting career. And plenty of reliable sources call Brown an entertainer, just as they do for most celebrities. Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see link, it was a public RM of several minor BLPs with "(entertainer)" - a rapper, singers, a couple of pornstars. I assume you mean html sources since there are zero Google Book ones. Sure if we widen the pool to non-print sources then "entertainer Chris Brown" starts to appear. But it's still at a ratio of 88.5:3.5 and many of those will be fansites, blogs and so on. Titling discussions don't usually give much weight to such sources, particularly if they are in a small minority. In any case happy to hear what others have to say. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't just mean online sources. But moving on: Per WP:TITLE, which is what WP:CRITERIA is a part of, titling articles is not always about a name or phrase being reported in reliable sources or the most common name or phrase being reported in reliable sources; for example, we have plenty of article titles that are simply descriptive rather than being a term or phrase used by reliable sources or by most reliable sources. Furthermore, we are obviously dealing with a disambiguated title, so what factors into titling disambiguated titles is different than what factors into titling non-disambiguated titles. And on that note, each instance of titling an article is a case-by-case matter, even with WP:COMMONNAME. Madonna is called a signer significantly more than she is called an entertainer by reliable sources, for example, and yet her Wikipedia article is located at Madonna (entertainer) because of the "singer-songwriter, actress, author, director, entrepreneur and philanthropist" categories she fits in (maybe even more so because of the attention that has been given to her acting career). Yes, that's more categories than Chris Brown is in, but she is still primarily known as a singer, and Brown, like her, is still more than just a singer. Anyway, I more than welcome comments from others on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support move. He's best known as a singer, and the use of "(entertainer)" as a disambiguator is generally wrong -that being the nice way to put it. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I truly do not understand the distaste for the word "entertainer" in this context. As has already been pointed out to the nom, "entertainer" means "a singer, comedian, dancer, reciter, or the like, especially a professional one" - in short, one who engages in any form of entertainment. It's certainly not limited to an "all round vaudeville or Las Vegas style performer". Lots of reliable sources use "entertainer" for precisely the situation we have here - when a performer is notable for more than one type of entertainment. And indeed, lots of reliable sources, from newspapers to books to scholarly journal articles, call the subject of this RM an "entertainer":
  • Fox News ("Controversial entertainer Chris Brown could be in big trouble.")
  • Los Angeles Times ("Colorful and toothy faces adorn a retaining wall at entertainer Chris Brown's Hollywood Hills house.")
  • Richmond Times-Dispatch ("This May 10, 2013 photo shows Graffiti painted on the walls of the home of entertainer Chris Brown in Hollywood Hills, Calif.")
  • NBC/E! Online (""I just tried my best to be the best man I could be over the years and just show her how remorseful and sorry I was for the incident and that time was probably the worst part of my life and being that she has and she's a wonderful person I'm eternally grateful and thankful," the entertainer told the American Idol host on his radio show.")
  • Temporal, Paul. Advanced Brand Management. 2011. ("Wrigley seems determined to win, however, and its costly marketing campaigns have used tennis icons Venus and Serena Williams, entertainer Chris Brown, and other celebrities to endorse the brand.")
  • Clear, Todd R. et al. American Corrections in Brief. 2011. p.114. ("It is likely that Chris Brown will successfully complete his probation term because, as an entertainer, he knows that he will constantly be in the public eye.")
  • AM Green, "The French Horror Film Martyrs and the Destruction, Defilement, and Neutering of the Female Form", Journal of Popular Film & Television, 2011. ("Rihanna's 2009 beating at the hands of fellow entertainer Chris Brown received a great deal of press.")
  • MC Hopson, "Chris Brown, Rihanna, and Countless Others: The Catalyst for Violence-prevention Education and Awareness", Black Women, Gender & Families, 2009. ("Allegations of relationship abuse involving entertainers Chris Brown and Rihanna contain multiple messages for youth and young adults.")

Now, maybe this is an ENGVAR issue or something, but there's simply nothing wrong with the word "entertainer" applying to performers like Brown. Dohn joe (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The thing that is wrong with it is that it's basically an "achievement badge" for some singers within a certain genre, implying that they're better or more important than competitors who don't have the achievement badge. Also, of course, the fact that it's a convention used for singers within the one certain genre, and not others, which is not neutral. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A certain genre? Which genre encompasses Madonna, Gloria Estefan, Taylor Swift, Bette Midler, Harry Belafonte and Stevie Wonder? Bottom line, if reliable sources use a descriptor, then we should, too. Dohn joe (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, bottom line, if reliable sources use a descriptor, then we should, too but they don't Again "the singer Chris Brown" gets 188 results in English books while "the entertainer Chris Brown" gets 1 result, Paul Temporal Advanced Brand Management: Managing Brands in a Changing World. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "but they don't". I already presented half a dozen reliable sources at random - newspapers, books, scholarly journals - that describe Chris Brown as an "entertainer". There are dozens more where they came from. Dohn joe (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that I overlooked In ictu oculi having kept this post about reliable sources not using the descriptor "entertainer" for Brown when I replied below to his or her "reliable sources don't" comments. Clearly, as shown above and below, In ictu oculi means book and/or magazine sources ("print sources"). Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom (I'd also be fine with (American rapper)). He is not primarily notable for his dancing or acting. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

He's not known as a rapper either, BDD, not generally anyway (and I only state "generally" in this case because there might be some recordings of him rapping). Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: The dancing aspect is a bit debatable, considering that Brown is often noted for his dancing and his dancing is often compared to Michael Jackson's dancing styles and the dancing styles of others. But out of singing or dancing, I'd also state that he is primarily known as a singer. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually familiar with any of his music, but chris brown rapper suggests that he is indeed known as a rapper. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, not generally. I'm not one of his fans and I'm not as familiar with some others when it comes to his work, but, out of the songs of his I have heard (I've only heard several), I have not heard any song that includes him rapping. Nor have I seen any performance of him rapping (it's always singing and/or dancing). And I'm sure that sources using rapper are confusing him with being a rapper (like sources often do when speaking of an R&B artist) or are confusing what rapper means...unless he actually has rapped on any of his or others' works. I'm going to alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians to this discussion. I would alert Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music to it, but that project is very inactive (though both projects are generally inactive). Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and our recent other moves in getting rid of the entertainer disambiguator.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  Why do you dislike "entertainer" in this context? Don't reliable sources use it - why shouldn't WP? Dohn joe (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - As he is known also as a dancer and actor which along with singer all fall under (entertainer). No reason to change it especially when multiple reliable sources use the term. STATic message me! 21:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Christopher Maurice "Chris" Brown (born May 5, 1989) is an American recording artist, dancer, and actor." The over-specific "singer" is less accurate than "entertainer". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe, no argument, that's 100% what Wikipedia says but Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and in this case the lead is performing a bit of a fan eulogy. In the reliable-source reality universe Chris Brown is not a dancer, he is a simply a singer who can dance: "the dancer chris brown" gets zero results in print, and only 5 in html. As for whether he's an actor: again "the actor Chris brown" gets zero results in print - and only 1 or 2 maybe, in html, demonstrating that he isn't an actor, he's a singer who just like every other singer has made a few attempts at acting. Compare "the actor Will Smith". WP:HONORIFIC doesn't directly address this term, but something is happening among fan pages that isn't happening in print sources, and we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan blog. Hence the proposal to reflect print source terminology here. That's the reason. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Before you removed these two recent posts of yours, I was going to state that Dohn joe demonstrated above that reliable sources do refer to Brown as an "entertainer" (just like, as I stated higher above in this section, most celebrities are often referred to as entertainers). And none of those sources he demonstrated are blogs or fansites, and he included book sources. Your way of defining what is a reliable source is not supported by WP:Reliable sources. "Print sources" are not considered any more reliable/given more weight than online sources by the WP:Reliable sources guideline and the WP:Verifiability policy. The lead stating "recording artist, dancer, and actor" is no different, or barely any different, than how most Wikipedia leads are with regard to famous people, including articles of WP:GA or WP:FA status. That's not "a bit of a fan eulogy." And as for "In the reliable-source reality universe Chris Brown is not a dancer," Brown is indeed a dancer. He is also an actor. Saying that he is neither is your opinion. He calls himself a dancer and actor, and reliable sources identify him as a dancer and/or actor, and therefore, going by only that, he is a dancer and actor. Flyer22 (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, before seeing this comment I removed "dancer" from the lead with this edit summary requesting a reliable source but did not remove Category:African-American dancers. If you can find a source which states that Chris Brown is notable as a dancer then please restore "and dancer." In ictu oculi (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And I reverted you, per what I stated above. There are plenty of reliable sources, including some in this article, that call him a dancer and/or show that he is notable as a dancer; like I stated above, his dancing styles are often compared to Michael Jackson's and Usher's dancing styles, though the "Success and comparison to other artists" section doesn't yet largely single out the dancing aspect and needs significant expansion. It's certainly not his voice that keeps getting compared to those artists. And to further elaborate on my feelings with regard to your definition of a reliable source, I'm sure that not all of the magazines that Brown has been featured in are on Google Books; in fact, I'm sure that most are not. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, if you can find a source which states that Chris Brown is notable as a dancer then please restore "and dancer." What you'll be looking for are sources which say "the American dancer Chris Brown", "Chris Brown the dancer", "Chris Brown is also renowned as a dancer" - a source which justifies the lede statement that Chris Brown is a dancer. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Billboard, Vol. 123, No. 11, Apr. 2-9, 2011, p. 37: "Although best—known as a singer/dancer, Chris Brown has been testing out his rapping skills for quite some time." So there it is. Let's move on. Dohn joe (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I'm not sure why you are repeating yourself, or why you feel the need to patronize me (unless that is simply your personality), but I already answered above. No, to have "dancer" included, this article does not need a source that specifically states "Chris Brown is notable as a dancer" or any wording similar to that; all it needs are reliable sources "that call him a dancer and/or show that he is notable as a dancer," and this article already has that. It does not need "print sources" (which are still online sources if they include a url, by the way). I do not need to follow your peculiar sourcing regiment, and I won't be doing so. If it were a case of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to call him a dancer, you would have a valid point on this matter. But it's not undue weight to call him such. He is known as a dancer far more than he is known as an actor, and yet you chose to remove "dancer" and leave in "actor" with the qualifier "occasional." You have an odd take on the WP:Verifiability policy and the WP:Reliable sources guideline, and I pity anyone who subscribes to it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, I was repeating myself because you did not provide a source. We cannot simply say what we "know" about WP:BLPs. DohnJoe has now provided a source, and it should be added. It still doesn't mean he is usually known as "the entertainer Chris Brown" in reliable third party (third party means non-fan) sources. He isn't. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan page and should not be using fan language about singers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, the reason that I did not provide sources is explained to you in my "16:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)" comment. And let's get the following straight right now: I did not state that we can simply say what we know about WP:BLPs. And I do not appreciate you implying that I did. I am going by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on this matter; you are going by your odd interpretations of those policies and guidelines (such as "print sources"). Once again, when it comes to WP:Verifiability, all we need to do is provide reliable sources that describe Brown by these descriptors and to make certain that we are not giving undue weight to any aspect. Well, as has been stated to you time and time again in this discussion, reliable sources describe Brown by these descriptors -- a lot of reliable sources, in fact. And Brown is credited as a dancer in reliable sources quite often. No one in this discussion has stated that Brown is "usually known as 'the entertainer Chris Brown' in reliable third party sources" or any other type of sources. What editors have stated in this discussion is that using "entertainer" as a disambiguator for the title of this Chris Brown article is fine because Brown is more than just a singer and is described as an entertainer in a lot of reliable sources. And as a very experienced Wikipedia editor, who is also very familiar with the WP:GA and WP:FA processes, I certainly do not have to be told by you or anyone else what reliable third-party sources are. Nor do I have to be told that this is an encyclopedia. And as I have also made clear in this discussion, I am not a Chris Brown fan. So any implication that I am is ridiculous. Any implication that any of us are a Chris Brown fan, simply because we disagree with you on this topic, including that any language is honorific or fanboyish/fangirlish, is a tactic (that can be insulting, and is to me) to make our points seem less rational. "Entertainer," which, again, is used as a disambiguator for the Madonna (entertainer) article, is not even solely fan language; in fact, I wouldn't call it fan language at all. I've stated enough on these topics; you won't be changing my mind on the titling aspect or with regard to using the "dancer" and "actor" descriptors," just as it is obvious that I won't be changing your mind on the matters. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention to persuade the editor who made the move to (American entertainer), I am merely restating that "the singer Chris Brown" gets 188 results in English books while "the entertainer Chris Brown" gets 1 print result.

The only source for "entertainer" in the article is "Multi-talented Entertainer Chris Brown Goes 'Back to School,' Taking on a Starring Role in the St. Jude Math-A-Thon (R) Video". PR Newswire. Archived from the original on December 4, 2011. ...as it says, it is a "PR Newswire," it remains my view that this reflects fan language rather than 3rd party objective encyclopaedic print source language. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As is shown in the #Title of article section above, the title of this article already had the disambiguator "entertainer" in it. I disambiguated it with "American entertainer" when moving it from the disambiguator "American singer" for the reasons, which had agreement, stated in that discussion; the disambiguator "American singer" did not last long and the article was not disambiguated with "singer" for the reasons that you want it to be. As for the rest of your comment, to reply to it would be mostly repeating what I have already stated; thus, I refer you back to those statements. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I expect that the lede should be correct, correct with respect to the best overall sources that reference the lede, before entertaining requests to refine the title. The lede should also be stable. Otherwise, I oppose renaming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know. Maybe Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source should contain something on the relation of article content to RMs maybe it shouldn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe has clarified that he would be following what reliable sources state, which is what the lead should be based on, not what a Wikipedia editor has "stated" in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. "Recording artist"? (Honorific-ish too, in my mind. Most musicians record what they perform.) What is being recorded? Chris Brown singing. Not dancing. Not entertaining. I think IIO phrases it well: he can dance, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a dancer. The same thing goes for actor. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above. --Article editor (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose He does act and does dance as a profession, so he is an actor and a dancer. And since music videos come with the territory of being a "recording artist", his dancing is also technically recorded. I don't think he can sing, tho, LOL. I would be fine with "(American recording artist)" since music videos are just about as important to his product and what he is know for as his singing, but entertainer would suffice to encompass both, and it's been used in many reputed news sources. Instead of focusing on the number of results at GoogleBooks for one variation of "singer Chris Brown", I would defer to the most reliable sources on this article's topic, which hopefully are already cited in this article. Reliable book sources on a topic tend to be written in retrospect, and this dude is not done yet; how many of these books from the search for "singer Chris Brown" could really be used in this article? Dan56 (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'd support moving to Chris Brown. He's arguably the primary topic ahead of everyone else. Unreal7 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Others have stated similarly; see #Requested move above, if you haven't already (I added "if you haven't already" because I'm reminded now that you started the second requested move discussion, but a different editor disambiguated that heading with the number 2, which, since you didn't add that disambiguation, means that you might not have been aware that there was a previous requested move discussion). Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I could support that too. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4

• Chris Brown (American entertainer) → Chris Brown
• Chris Brown → Chris Brown (disambiguation)

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, supported by the fact that this article was viewed nearly 627,000 times in the last 90 days. To reiterate what past discussions have argued, just because the name is common doesn't mean we can't have a primary topic. On the contrary, this singer is clearly more prominent than any of the other people listed on the disambiguation and should be given the plain title. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indifferent: I'm indifferent, or rather conflicted, on the matter because of what was stated at #Requested move above (not the arguments about "Chris Brown" being a common name, however). By the way, I was about to add the number 4 to this section's title, but you beat me to it. Thanks for having the foresight to do so. For a person to save a post in this section would have otherwise taken that person to the Requested move section above because it has an identical title and is the first to have that title on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per previous RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The previous RM was to change to Chris Brown (American Singer) in an attempt to remove (entertainer) wheras this is an an argument to remove a qualifier all together on the grounds that this person is thr primary meaning of Chris Brown. The problem is what you are now supporting is not what you supported previously since the current request has nothing to do whatsoever with removing (entertainer) from Wikipedia, nor would its removal here due to primary topic issues necessary apply to other articles with (entertainer)if the person in question is not the primary topic.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - as I said above. Unreal7 (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)