Talk:Chris Brown/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)