Talk:Justin Bieber/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Legal troubles section

Carrying on from the above discussion, "Where is the controversy section?": I do not wish the conversation to continue there because we don't really want controversy sections here, do we? ("not a supermarket tabloid"...) However, instead of controversy, I have decided to start establish a legal troubles section, primarily focusing on Beiber's run-ins with the law all over the world, instead of his less serious but still stupid acts (Anne Frank etc). I anticipate some activity to arise due to my edit, thus I have taken the time to start a talk page section here. Note that in my edit, I have found 8 references (currently 134 - 141) which were only written after Beiber's recent arrest (demonstrating "significant events with long-lasting widespread media coverage" and "lasting notability not just be tabloid fodder for that week"), detailing Bieber's past troubles with the law, which is definitely substantial and not to swept under the carpet as separate, minor incidents. The sources were from The Washington Post, BBC News, CTV News, ABC News, The Times of India, Boston.com and the Los Angeles Times. At least some of the sources were definitely "discussing all these incidents as a whole rather than individually and how his image may have changed because of them these past couple years." Feel free to discuss. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 09:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP -- this new section is a train wreck, violating WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and acts as though Wikipedia should be a tabloid newspaper of the first water. The use of the "mug shot" is icing on this cake. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You throw WP:BLP like a giant book around - please elaborate. WP:UNDUE - maybe because the subject has faced many, many run-ins with the law? WP:NPOV - philanthropy is neutral, legal troubles aren't neutral? He has faced so many legal troubles, and that's not even mentioning controversies like insulting Anne Frank, and not a single one of them appeared on the page before. Now that, is what I call WP:NPOV. WP:SYNTH - every single sentence is sourced. Tabloid - yeah, all the sources provided clearly are tabloid material. <in hindsight, the sarcasm might not be so apparent in the previous sentence> Feel free to check and correct me on that. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK -- here it comes:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material

Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

WP:TABLOID: An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

And so on. The key part of BLP is that biographies must be written conservatively. I would point out that at WP:BLP/N, the use of mugshots has never been approved except if no other images can be found. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty easy to copy / paste chunks of policy, I was hoping you would match each part of the policy to each sentence to explain how each sentence violated policy. But it's fine, you can do it below. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Quoting policies usually isn't necessary, especially when it's possible simply to link to them. The question is how to apply them. Quoting them doesn't really take things very far. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No. This is accurate. Anyone who reinserts that mugshot photo can and should be blocked for violating WP:BLP and specifically violating WP:MUG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that a threat? You sound pretty aggressive to me. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should there be an automatic block when the policy only gives the red light to usage "out of context"? There should first be an inquiry into whether the context is appropriate and whether the subject is truly being cast in a "false" light, no? The fact that mass media have been repeatedly using this image but the cry BLP crowd considers it biased is an example of just how far WP:BLP has taken Wikipedia away from what reliable sources are the doing.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed." The image most certainly is not one which the subject wants to be presented and it shows the subject in a disparaging way and was one in which the photograph was not wanted and in a situation beyond their control. There is no encyclopedic value of the booking photo other than to poke fun at the recent details surrounding the individuals life. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear on this. The mugshot was in the article before I started the legal troubles section. I merely shifted it from the personal life to the legal troubles section. I am only half-jokingly when I say this: "situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed"? He was clearly smiling and prepared for the photo, and expected to be presented as smiling. "No encyclopedic value"? See my reply just below to Dr.K. on symbolism of the photo representing a change of image. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is a clear WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV issue. Choosing the mugshot, as the picture to fairly represent Bieber, is a BLP violation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If there were only one photo in the article, or if the mugshot is the "profile picture", yeah, it might be unfair to represent Bieber that way. But there are five other photos in the article. Below you mention "define / defining". But it's just... or would be, one out of six photos. Anyway, I'd say it is an appropriate picture for the legal troubles section, well, to show that he was arrested. His mugshot is symbolic - and this isn't me saying it, it's the Associated Press: Justin Bieber’s mug shot hints at the boy-next-door image he’s carefully crafted over the past several years, with a glistening smile and professionally upswept hair. But the red jail jumpsuit also visible in the photo tells a different story, one about the singer’s recent troubles and emergence as a bad boy.. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is that so many people who see BLP violations can't see obvious NPOV violations like refusing to follow the editorial practice of thousands of reliable sources in the outside media because you want to bias biographies in favour of flattering the subject? These same editors then typically refuse to extend the public relations courtesies to corporations because corporations don't have "feelings." There was once a time when NPOV reigned supreme and facts trumped feelings.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your assumption that individual editors "want to bias biographies in favour of flattering the subject" is unwarranted. Please assume good faith and discuss content not editors. If you feel WP:BLP should be less restrictive or extended to cover corporations, please open a discussion on that policy's talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the content issue at stake here or do you just wish to express your opinion about me? My complaint is not based on an "assumption" but on the uncontested fact that editors are arguing we should not adopt the practice of reliable sources because doing so would be unflattering to the subject. As for opening a discussion, it is already open: should BLP be interpreted here so as to conflict with and override NPOV?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with SummerPhD's comments while at the same time noting that insisting that we illustrate Bieber with a mugshot is not a matter of "flattery" or "feelings" but a matter of fairness and logic. It would be ridiculous to define Bieber's image with a mugshot just because of one incident in his life involving the police while at the same time ignoring the overwhelming volume of coverage that all the other moments of his public life have got. Bieber's body of work cannot be defined by this police incident and this incident does not define Bieber's image. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Now this is the sort of accuracy-based argument I have been waiting to hear. I don't think it is "ridiculous" any more than this comprehensive Washington Post article carrying an Associated Press story is "ridiculous" for prominently featuring the mugshot, but at least this is an effort to appeal to something other than giving the subject a courtesy.--23:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you should consider that this is an encyclopedic article and as such it cannot be defined by a newspaper article. The newspaper article defines a moment in time, such as this police incident. The encyclopedic article tries to depict Bieber's life which is the sum of a myriad of moments. Choosing a single moment to represent the sum total of Bieber's public life is completely unjustifiable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Many newspaper stories only address a single day's events but that isn't the case here. Does the line in this particular article "He was positioned as clean-cut and charming — even singing for President Barack Obama and his family at Christmas — but problems began to multiply as he got older." address only a single moment in time? The issue is whether we should freeze the article at his prior "positioning." By the way, I don't believe anyone is arguing that this material should dominate the article. In the case of the booking photo, the issue is not whether to feature it, it's whether to have it all. There should be a way to indicate to the reader that the arrest wasn't exactly a bolt out of the blue without this being presented as "the sum total."--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Collect that the "Legal troubles" section has a lot of speculation, minor incidents and unproven allegations and violates WP:UNDUE and BLP amongst other policies or guidelines. Being accused of something does not qualify as "legal trouble". The section should be removed and the items should be discussed on talk individually to gain consensus before being reinserted. This is the revival of the rejected criticism section by another name and is even worse than before because it includes more minor incidents and unproven allegations. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed the section back to one paragraph, subject to what is eventually decided here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming and not bothering to attempt to discuss what should or should not be included, despite the fulfilment of the criteria you proposed in the above "controversy" section. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean the stuff about the pet monkey and the graffiti? You're very welcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now you have elaborated, good. But you didn't remove only the pet monkey and the graffiti... you removed nearly everything, including his first arrest. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The untouched paragraph started with, "Leading up to his first arrest in January 2014..." [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You removed everything from 2013-2014. I should have been clearer, I meant that you removed the details of his first arrest, what his first arrest was for (DUI etc). starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. In my opinion, we should include legal issues only if they have been proven in a court of law. Any other incident is just speculation and rumour, good perhaps for a tabloid, but unfit to be included in an encyclopaedic biography. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

All I see from above is throwing around of policy, and mostly discussion of the mugshot which was already present in the article. Who has bothered to actually discuss the content and references which I added in detail (instead of the mugshot), instead of merely broadly dismissing the content and references as "a train wreck", "has a lot of speculation, minor incidents and unproven allegations", and most worryingly "Any other incident is just speculation and rumour". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is important to think about the purpose of adding the previous troubles with the law. Incidents that might not have seemed notable or seem to be "minor" can become more notable due to his first arrest. This is because it is a pattern, a build-up of events that culminated (L.A. Times' word for it) in his arrest. I am trying to depict Bieber's life which is the sum of a myriad of moments. His arrest was due to driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs, drag racing, and for resisting arrest without violence. So apparently, Bieber has problems with a) Driving, b) Alcohol c) Drugs. So when I look back at the previous incidents, which of these have to do with a) Driving, b) Alcohol c) Drugs? They should have a higher priority of being included. I'd also like to include a further category d) elaboration of Bieber's troubles around the world. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1)Leading up to his first arrest in January 2014, Bieber had numerous run-ins with the law around the world to develop a wild "bad boy" reputation, in contrast to his original cultivated boy-next-door image.

A summary and comparisons of image before and after. Quotes: "Bieber’s image: From boy-next-door to bad boy" / "Justin Bieber’s mug shot hints at the boy-next-door image he’s carefully crafted over the past several years... the singer’s recent troubles and emergence as a bad boy" / "...music career has taken a backseat to his wild boy antics" starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

2)Back in October 2011, Bieber was pulled over while driving and warned by Los Angeles police.

a) Driving. In the sources I searched for (all published after his DUI arrest in 2013), this was the earliest mentioned incident, albeit a more minor one. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

3)In May 2012, the singer was accused of attacking a photographer, Jose Hernandez-Duran, but Bieber did not face charges after prosecutors cited "insufficient evidence".

4)Bieber was also accused of reckless driving in his neighbourhood in 2012, but prosecutors again declined to press charges.

a) Driving. This is also related to Bieber's (specifically driving in the) neighbourhood, as are other incidents. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

5)Bieber also faced numerous legal troubles in 2013.

Just a simple point. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

6)A neighbor accused Bieber of spitting in his face after he confronted Bieber regarding Bieber's speeding through the neighborhood.

a) Driving. Second incident of Bieber allegedly driving dangerously in the neighbourhood. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

7)In a separate incident, police had to be called in after neighbour Keyshawn Johnson also confronted Bieber regarding speeding.

a) Driving. Third incident of Bieber allegedly driving dangerously in the neighbourhood. The more instances, the more notable, I'd say. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

8)2013 also saw several lawsuits targeted at Bieber, photographer Jeffrey Binion sued Bieber and one of his bodyguards for $15,000 in damages for allegedly attacking him and stealing his memory card, while a former bodyguard was seeking more than $420,000 in compensation, claiming that the pop star berated him and punched him during an argument. The latter case is scheduled to go to trial in February 2014.

9)Bieber's troubles were not confined to the United States. Also in 2013, Bieber was asked to remove graffiti he had left on the wall of a hotel in Australia. That came a month after he was charged in Brazil over a similar offence of vandalism, while he also upset Colombian authorities with his graffiti.

d) elaboration of Bieber's troubles around the world. It is sourced that the government (agencies?) of three countries have been offended by Bieber's graffiti vandalism. of which Brazil charged him with vandalism and Australia asked him to clean it up, but he did not. I'd say these multiple instances make it more notable. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

10)He was also accused of disrespecting the Argentine flag after he used a microphone to mop the floor with it during a concert in Buenos Aires. Meanwhile, Bieber's pet monkey Mally was quarantined in Germany after Bieber failed to produce the required vaccination and import papers. Mally was later re-homed at a safari park.

d) elaboration of Bieber's troubles around the world - but unconnected to the other incidents, so therefore more minor. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

11)Bieber's tour buses were raided twice in 2013 in Detroit and Sweden while Bieber was not present; the raids turned up unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in the former incident and marijuana in the latter.

c) Drugs and d) elaboration of Bieber's troubles around the world. Specifically, marijuana was found on Bieber's tour bus in Sweden, and Bieber's DUI involved marijuana as well. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

12)In early January 2014, after a neighbor accused Bieber of tossing eggs at his house, causing $20,000 in damage and almost injuring a 13-year-old girl, police searched Bieber's Calabasas home, resulting in Bieber's friend Lil Za being arrested on cocaine possession charges. Police are still investigating the felony vandalism case.

c) Drugs. Significant not because of the eggs, but because cocaine was found in 'plain view' in Bieber's home. Prelude to arrest. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think more than 3 or 4 sentences should be spent on this.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if we want to trim it down to reduce undue weight, we can remove 3) and 8), the lawsuits which are unrelated to his latest arrests, also satisfies Dr. K's "only if they have been proven in a court of law". 2) and 10) are related to a) and d) but are more minor / unconnected, so they can be ignored in view of the addition of stronger points below. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

4), 6) and 7) are interconnected and strongly related to Bieber driving dangerously in his neighbourhood and I strongly feel they should be included, even if they have to be combined or summarised. I also feel 9) should be strongly included because of the pattern of graffiti upsetting authorities in three separate countries, and Bieber was actually charged with vandalism in Brazil. 11) is related to two points: c) and d), and it wasn't one raid, but two in different countries! 12) is only related to c) but surely having drugs (cocaine) found in your home is serious, and this happened less than two weeks before Bieber's arrest. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1) and 5) are points, not examples. I don't see why 1)'s elaboration of Bieber's image was removed from the article. It was sourced, see the quotes. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that there should be inclusion of the things Bieber has done per the WP:RS that have come forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty interesting - when I originally added the legal troubles section and started this section on the talk page, it was 17:33 <I set my time on Wikipedia to my own time zone, causing a timing error> 09:33, 25 January 2014?. Within 24 hours, we have editors like Collect, ChrisGualtieri, NeilN and Dr.K. voicing their opposition (posting multiple times at that) of some sort on the talk page, and together, some of them removed almost all of the content and reliable references I added from the article. By 18:40 10:40, 26 January 2014, I have posted the entire legal troubles section on the talk page, and analysed each previous incident sentence by sentence, in the hope that at least some can be determined by consensus to be worthy of inclusion in the article. But within the next 24 hours, after the section has been removed from the article, the above four have not posted here at all to offer their comments despite my attempts to stimulate a discussion on the talk page - despite all of them being active on Wikipedia since 18:40 10:40, 26 January 2014. I hope that ignoring the current discussion doesn't mean their previous stance of opposing the "legal troubles" added still stands. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The proper Wikipedia policies have been cited. Read them. Abide by them. Experienced editors have explained them. Violating the policies is likely to lead to people being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with starship on this. Bieber's been in a string of problems with the law over the past year. To not cover them and focus on his "Twitter" instead really looks like the Beliebers are at work trying to protect him. We don't need to cover every trivial issue, but he has certainly been in a few controversies which are well-covered in reliable sources and to not include them in my opinion looks like cherry picking and affects neutrality. I agree with Correct to an extent that it's a delicate issue and that it can easily come across as a "train wreck" and tabloid fodder, but to avoid it completely in my opinion also affects NPOV and looks like censorship to me. I think readers would expect to read about some of his run ins with the law in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect's reply at best broadly dismisses my attempt to generate discussion to contribute to the article, as you have already done before above. At worst, you (Collect) simply ignored what I have posted, as well as issued a veiled threat. You had the chance to rebut sentences 1) to 11) point-by-point, in fact I did ask you to do so above... Pretty easy to copy / paste chunks of policy, I was hoping you would match each part of the policy to each sentence to explain how each sentence violated policy. But it's fine, you can do it below. Your refusal seems to indicate to me that you consider a proper rebuttal beneath you. Unlike you, I will rebut your post - the one with the huge chunk of policy - below. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Long point-by-point reply from starship.paint to Collect regarding Collect's citing of BLP

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Okay... and what? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Fine. I did consider this - instead of a controversy section, where I could focus on ridiculous things Bieber has done like call Anne Frank a possible Beliber, being carried up the Great Wall of China, visiting strip clubs, spraying Bill Clinton's photo with cleaning fluid - I chose to focus on the legal troubles. Simple as that. It's not sensationalist when there's a pattern / a build-up of his troubles. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material Okay... and what? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Is it fair to mention Philantrophy, Endorsements and Twitter, but not elaborate on his more serious misdoings which might lead to legal consequences? Is it fair to fail to elaborate on the build-up of Bieber's flouting of the law after multiple reliable sources have covered it? Amongst the reliable sources I cited I provide three titles - "Justin Bieber - Growing up disgracefully" / "Bieber’s image: From boy-next-door to bad boy" / "Justin Bieber's Miami Beach arrest is more culmination than aberration" starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Oh yes. I think the eight sources are provided are reliable. I think the information I provided is relevant, because the previous acts built up to the first arrest. Remember - the sources I provided were not "breaking news" reports of Bieber commiting wrongdoing A / B. They were all summaries of Bieber's past, documenting things from 2011 to Jan 2014, and all were published after Bieber's first arrest in 2014. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information. I'm afraid Bieber doesn't qualify for this. "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow." -> "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) WP:TABLOID: An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Okay fine. We can take out some details. Above I have labelled sentence 1) to 11). I am no longer lobbying to include all of them. We can combine / summarise 4), 6) and 7), as well as the various vandalism cases in 9). Enduring notability is established, see my above point - not "breaking news" reports but a reflection of Bieber's past. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Enduring notability is established, see my above point - not "breaking news" reports but a reflection of Bieber's past. I did not use routine reporting. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Beliebers editing this article trying to protect him. Do you really believe that? I removed a chunk of trivial and not-so-trivial offences [2] and made the observation that we should not add a laundry list of his purported misdoings but rather try to integrate them in an image section. Starship.paint has suggested trimming the section to three of four points which is good and I have no objection to that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it wasn't me, it was Brian Dell who suggested it. I am trying to comply for the sake of consensus. Here is my edited text. One point sentence then four examples / elaboration sentences. Leading up to his first arrest in January 2014, Bieber had numerous run-ins with the law around the world to develop a "bad boy" reputation, in contrast to his originally cultivated boy-next-door image. In 2013, Bieber was charged in Brazil with vandalism; in the same year, Bieber's graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities. Meanwhile, Bieber's neighbours in the community of Calabasas, such as Keyshawn Johnson have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding within the neighbourhood. Bieber's tour buses were raided twice in 2013 in Detroit and Sweden while Bieber was not present; the raids turned up unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in the former incident and marijuana in the latter. Less than two weeks before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for possessing drugs believed to be cocaine. How is it? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of these are unproven allegations. They may have been reported in reliable sources but most of this stuff has not been proven in a court of law. In the bus incident he was not even there. What the neighbours allege is unproven. Same goes for the authorities who are "upset" about his alleged vandalism. This is innuendo at its worst. And what does Bieber have to do with the behaviour of his girlfriend? Nothing, except for the innuendo of course. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

a) I'm afraid you can't play the allegation card for Bieber. You have to thank Collect for pointing me to policy. WP:BLPCRIME says "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." However, right after that there's "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow", where it says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't play the allegation card for Bieber. Please do not presume to attribute motives to my edit. I came here in good faith to contribute my ideas toward improving this article. So I do not appreciate being met with fake exclamations about my alleged motives. Moving forward, I repeat once more: You are trying to integrate a number of unproven allegations and speculation, some of which do not even involve Bieber directly, (for instance the girlfriend allegations and the bus incident), into a speculative whole to advance the status of mere media speculation into an encyclopedic entry. It is my opinion, that under any standards, BLP, SYNTH, etc., this is not acceptable. I accept of course that this is a community project, so naturally I will abide by any consensus that develops. So let's wait for others to chime in. It is obvious we disagree, so let's wait for the opinion of others instead of arguing needlessly between us. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I get the vibe that you were deeply insulted by my first sentence there, I guess that's why you didn't even read the first sentence of the next paragraph. (you got the girlfriend's gender wrong, unless you are not referring to Lil Za, if so you are not referring to something I have actually added to the article) I think you should definitely clarify your "girlfriend" comment, otherwise it seems invalid to me if there wasn't even any "girlfriend" allegations in the first place. If you are referring to Lil Za, do reply to b) below. I'm not sure why you even interpreted my first sentence that way, I don't see a better word for "for" in that sentence. Would "I'm afraid you can't play the allegation card for the Justin Bieber article." better help you understand what I was trying to say? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

b) I shall address the bus incident and the behaviour of his "girlfriend" (really a guy though) together. How are the incidents noteworthy and relevant? Think about the similarities between these two incidents and Bieber's first arrest. In all three cases, drugs were involved, and in all three cases, Bieber's friends and/or entourage were involved. Remember, Bieber was not arrested driving drunk and high on drugs alone. If he was, then these two incidents become less relevant. However, Khalil, his friend, was also arrested and charged with DUI. In the bus incident, even if Bieber was not around at the time, his entourage were found having unspecified drugs in Detroit and in Sweden, marijuana (which Bieber was arrested for being under the influence while driving). Now, for Bieber's boy-friend, I disagree that Bieber has nothing to do with his behaviour. This is not Lil Za on the street sniffing glue by himself. This friend, Lil Za, was actually staying in Bieber's house, and he brought drugs to Bieber's house, leaving them in plain view. As the host, Bieber has a certain degree of responsibility to ensure no illegal activities are going on, especially regarding people who are staying in his home, who brought illegal drugs into his home, and who are leaving said drugs in plain view. I wonder why nobody stopped Lil Za? So this is why these incidents are noteworthy and relevant - compared to the first arrest of Bieber, they involve the similarities of drugs and Bieber's friends/entourage's involvement. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

c) What the neighbours alleged are unproven - yes, but they become relevant due to Bieber's driving troubles with his first arrest. They are more noteworthy because there seems to be at least three incidents of these allegations, once in 2012 and twice in 2013. Furthermore, it's not like the neighbours straightaway brought their accusations to the media to slander Bieber - no, for the two times in 2013, the neighbours actually confronted Bieber in person regarding his driving, which led to media reports when police had to intervene after the confrontations. So again, they are noteworthy due to multiple instances of accusations, as well as in-person confrontations. They are relevant because Bieber committed a driving offence for his first arrest, and this is about driving as well. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

d) For the graffiti vandalism, the Brazil incident is no allegation - he was charged with "tagging or otherwise defiling a building or urban monument". This makes the other two instances in Australia and Colombia more noteworthy and relevant - graffiti all around. I don't see what's so alleged - there is video of Bieber spray-painting graffiti in Australia, and the Gold Coast mayor asked him to clean it up. Here is photo evidence of Bieber's graffiti in Bogota, Colombia. Are the authorities "upset"? That's for the reliable sources to say, and the answer is yes. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I get the vibe that you were deeply insulted by my first sentence there, I guess that's why you didn't even read the first sentence of the next paragraph. I don't know where you get your "vibe" from but for sure it ain't from me. Because it didn't bother me in the least. I simply wanted to tell you to not be presumptuous, because it is simply not a good practice. But my effort obviously failed because you replied with even more presumption. This is not going anywhere. I will disengage from this back and forth and let other editors chime in as I said before. Obviously, please feel free to have the last word. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It was your lack of action in replying to the rest of my post (again!) that causes me to presume. It seems to me that you are dodging bullets. Likewise, I again challenged you to explain your "girlfriend" comment, and you failed to do so again, instead only focusing on my first sentence. You should have to explain the "girlfriend" comment, because it is wholly invalid. There are no "girlfriend" allegations, that I added, or were there when I added to the article, period. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:WELLKNOWN the majority of the events covered in the points above by User:Starship.paint are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented to include in the article, and abide by WP:BLPCRIME. Instead of going back and forth. lets decide what to include in the article, since there is quite a bit of content that should be included, that was removed. Every event was covered by reliable sources so that is not an issue, and the majority are infact very notable and especially relevant as how it ties into his first arrest, on do not forget pretty major crimes. STATic message me! 17:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree but the things included should be things that have been proven to be true, right now there is his drag racing issue as well as turning himself in to face assult charges in Canada. These kind of things are not just being reported by tabloids anymore. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I think I have done enough talk here. It's been five or six days now. I have explained as much as I can and backed up my content as much as I can. Editors like Knowledgekid87, Dr. Blofeld and STATic have come to support the re-addition of my removed content due to WP:RS and WP:WELLKNOWN. Editors like Brian Dell and NeilN have supposedly supported trimming my added content to 3 or 4 points; I have messaged them both on their talk pages to see the purple text; Brian Dell didn't reply, NeilN did, but none of them have weighed in here despite them continuing to edit on Wikipedia, so I am going to go ahead; also, the content I am adding is going to be 4 sentences long. Collect has broadly cited policy, which I have attempted to refute point-by-point in the collapsed text, but has apparently disengaged from this discussion and is editing other articles. Dr.K. has apparently chosen to disengage from the discussion after leaving points, I have repeatedly tried to refute the points, but I don't think a reply will be coming. The rest of the editors only posted in the mugshot sub-section of this discussion, and that sub-section looks to be settled down. So, I am going to take action now. I am going to include the purple text into the article now. There will be a small change, anything about his change of image to "bad boy", I am going to transfer to the 3 Style, image and fans section, not the personal life section. Thanks to everyone who has taken time to reply to the discussion. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your "refutation" wasn't/ It was TLDR "stuff" showing that you fail to understand the WP:BLP policy and reasons behind it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not People magazine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Again you make the sweeping statements. I have wrote quite a lot and all I get is "you fail to understand" and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". No elaboration for me to work on. I will read the WP:BLP again now - will post if I somehow "see the light". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact is this: WP:BLP has specific requirements. One is that any contentious claim requires strong sourcing. Period. "Speculation" as to motive is the purest tabloid fodder, and does not belong in any BLP. And writing a thousand words does not alter the policy. Cheers. `Collect (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Speculation" as to motive -> you are clearly referring to the "suggested that" content I added recently. Fine, I accept and I am not protesting that. I started a whole new section about the petition, not the motive, below. To tell you the truth, and this is not blaming NeilN at all, I talked to NeilN on his talk page. He suggested adding that particular source to the image section regarding Bieber's image change, but wasn't explicit about what content to add. NeilN seems experienced, and I agreed with him. So I added content of my own accord and take responsibility for that. Maybe I chose the wrong content to add. So remove that content on speculation as to motive, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with removing the petition, and have started a section below. And writing a thousand words thus not alter policy, but maybe, just maybe, it shows which policy is not applicable at a certain time and place. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have also read WP:BLP. What stands out most to me is WP:WELLKNOWN. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. I intend to abide by that. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Try reading discussions at WP:BLP/N and note that "WELLKNOWN" is readily abused, and is not regarded as a reason for such stuff as "he takes Xanax" or the like -- such stuff is a medical record, and is not of biographical merit. Also the "petition" is totally irrelevant to the person -- try reading the definition of "biography" please. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a straw man argument to me. "He takes Xanax" might not be of merit, but "He was proven to be under the influence of Xanax while driving, and was arrested for it" is, and the latter is what you removed. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I see your problem -- you say that he was "proven to be under the influence of Xanax" which is not what the sources actually say. When we make such leaps, we are not acting as editors but as prosecutors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's a mistake in my wording on my part, although he was indeed arrested for driving under the influence, it was stated that alprazolam (Xanax) was in his system at the point of his arrest, which would be when the whole incident happened. Regardless, my phrasing mistake here has no bearing on the article - because the article's content is accurate, and says what the secondary sources say. There is no such "leap" in the article. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling a fan a beached whale

Justin Bieber called one of his fans a "beached whale", making her cry. He then remarked that she should go on The Biggest Loser. See this article for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football1607 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTNEWS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, but maybe we should add a page on reasons people think he should be deported.Football1607 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Football1607

Short answer: No. Long answer: No, we are an encyclopedia, not Facebook. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Petition to deport Bieber is most signed in White House website

I added the following to the article, in the Style, image and fans section. I believe it fits the image part, specifically. "In late January 2014, a February 2014}}</ref> Collect reverted, stating "petition" is not relevant to a biography and is tabloid news at best. So, I'd like to discuss. Is it? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The strikethrough was for the old text originally added. The updated version is such: In late January 2014, Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by a petition created on the White House's website which described Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations (sic) youth" thus calling for Bieber to be deported. The petition attracted over 200,000 signatures, becoming the most popular of all open White House petitions within days.

Personally, I think that this is relevant to the article. This has to do with Bieber's image. 200,000 people have endorsed the petition so far, this is no small amount. It is also connected to a highly official avenue (the White House). By endorsing this, they are thinking that the presence of Bieber in society is negative, so he should be deported. Doesn't that have to do with image? Therefore, 200,000 people have a negative image of Bieber, negative to the point that they think he should be deported, I think that this is no small number and is notable. Furthermore, the petition has the highest number of signatures on the White House website based on petitions currently open. Is that not significant? The White House has to reply to those with over 100,000 signatures, but it hasn't done so yet (the petition only recently crossed the 100k mark) starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Or is this an issue of sourcing? Does Forbes and TIME report much tabloid news? ABC News? CNN News? Toronto Sun? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as Collect doesn't even have the decency to post his one-sentence reply regarding the petition in the correct section, here it is: Also the "petition" is totally irrelevant to the person -- try reading the definition of "biography" please. - 14:02, 31 January 2014. Not sure what policy Collect brought up here. It is relevant, because the petition has to do with the negative image of Bieber by the American public, and it therefore fits in the image section. I am restoring the info with further clarifications to its relevancy, and with additional better sources. To be explicit, the petition describes Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing" and "a terrible influence on our nations youth". That, is Bieber's image, endorsed by over 200,000 people. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Not have the decency"??? Try the fact that I actually have a life and am not obsessed with showing the world how "evil" Bieber is. BTW, the WH does not have any obligation to deal with a petition for it do do what it can not legally do! Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So not-so-indirectly, you are accusing me of not having a life? Well well well. You need to read my above replies again: the petition is relevant to Bieber's image, that's why it was posted in the Image section. Whether he is actually deported is irrelevant. As for "any obligation", are you so arrogant as to outright contradict the three reliable sources I have provided? Links are above. TIME: "Today it surpassed the 100,000 mark, which means the White House is required to issue an official response." Reuters: "on Wednesday passed the 100,000-signature mark needed to require a White House response." CNN: "A petition calling for the deportation of Canadian-born Justin Bieber surpassed the 100,000 signature threshold, meaning the White House must, by its own rules, issue a response." You did not bring up any sources to support yourself. This is not the first time you have made a factual error while reverting content from the Bieber article. Earlier, you claimed especially since it appears only proper meds were in his system regarding Bieber, despite the sources saying THC, a component in marijuana. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems to me that you answered that you couldn't post your one-sentence reply in the correct section... because unlike other people, you have a life. Did I get that right? You made that mistake because you have a life. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the BLP -- your asides are of no value to that end. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it; online petitions have no legal status or weight in the slightest. The White House one in particular is well-known by now as attracting legions of kooks and nuts trying to get their proverbial 15 minutes. (case in point; I signed the deportation one too). It is not relevant to a Wikipedia WP:BLP, and will not be reappearing in this article. - (unsigned comment by Tarc)

No legal status - okay, but legal status doesn't matter for Bieber's image. Not relevant to WP:BLP - which part of the policy says that? will not be reappearing in this article - how very arrogant. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont know about this, looking at Texas secession movements#Other discussions of secession starting in 2012 the article does mention the white house polling, while it does have no legal status it is notable in the fact that a pop star's visa status has reached the White House. I am not sure how often this happens though where enough signatures are gathered for it to reach the white house though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, I recognize your name as being very active and don't recall ever having a strong opinion of a decision you've made...but this one I don't understand. Who are you to proclaim that this "will not be reappearing in this article."? His entire career is based on media coverage. This fits the bill. This is noted in several reliable sources. Clearly, the white house won't deport him, but this deserves mention. --Onorem (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, these petitions are PR nonsense, there is noting particularly significant or noteworthy in getting 100,000 clicks (not necessarily, or even likely, 100,000 actual individuals) to click a button on a website. This thing has been used to call for things from Piers Morgan's deportation out the construction of a Death Star. A pop star being the subject of this is not notable in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WTF is your point? Your article is about them quadrupling the required number of sigs...and this still hit it. This is a very public figure with a story about his very public persona, and many reliable sources talking about a public petition. How many thousands have to sign before their opinion is more important than yours? PR nonsense? His career is PR? --Onorem (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

noting particularly significant or noteworthy in getting 100,000 clicks - apparently the White House doesn't think so, because its official policy states that it must respond to any petition getting over that number. This, is reliably sourced by sources I have provided above and below. Something I posted below - There are more reliable sources other than TIME/Forbes/Reuters/The Independent/MarketWatch I mentioned above. There's Agence France Presse, BBC, Associated Press. The four news agencies mentioned in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources have been covered here. Also, the fact that so many news agencies have covered this incident, screams to me that they think this is significant and/or noteworthy. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, I beg everyone to read my rationale and arguments above again. This is regarding Bieber's image in the eyes of the American public. The fact that the White House is required by its own rules to issue a response makes it significant. Whether the White House actually issues a response, or whether the White House has the power to deport Bieber - both are irrelevant - they have nothing to do with Bieber's image. If the White House directly comments on Bieber's image - now that might be relevant. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How the removed content satisfied WP:WELLKNOWN - relevant / noteworthy/ well documented - by starship

Originally posted at WP:BLPN - Essentially, the content was posted in the "style, image and news" section of Bieber's article. The petition reflects Bieber's image in the eyes of the American public. 200,000 people have endorsed Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing" and "a terrible influence on our nations youth". This is relevant to Bieber's image. Petitions that cross the 100,000 signature mark require an official White House response. Bieber's petition has doubled that and become the most popular open petition on the website. This makes it noteworthy. Whether the White House has the legal authority to deport Bieber has nothing to do with Bieber's image and thus should not even be discussed, whereas the mere existence of the petition with its signatures reflects Bieber's image. The multiple sources I provided above prove that this incident is well documented. Since nobody has cited policy yet, I will: the content fits WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to copy and paste the current discussion of this issue on WP:BLPN from there to here, but that is not allowed according to Collect. Fine. To all contributing to this discussion, please take note: THERE IS ANOTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS VERY ISSUE AT WP:BLPN. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding validity of petitions reaching the 100,000 mark and how serious they are, Mother Jones published a reaction by Matt Lehrich, an assistant White House press secretary, confirming in an email to Mother Jones and quoted in the magazine's story titled White House Vows to Respond to Petition Demanding Deportation of Justin Bieber: "Every petition that crosses the threshold [meaning 100,000] will be reviewed by the appropriate staff and receive a response. Response times vary based on total volume of petitions, subject matter, and a variety of other factors." This confirms the White House will answer eventually, or else the whole system of petitions it announced is bogus. The White House cannot make a mockery of a system it initiated as a valid recourse. Either the system works, or it is a lot of BS. I consider Wikipedia's move in censoring the mentioning of the petition now that it has passed the legal landmark set by the White House itself, as over-protective and over-sensitive. Meanwhile the whole international media is giving credibility and importance to the petition while we are endlessly discussing whether to include it or not. werldwayd (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is censorship, the petition has grown to over 250,000 signatures now with now a US senator responding in support. [3][4] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tossing around words like "censorship" is a mark of ignorance, not of an informed comment. I highly doubt anyone who is weighing-in against this is a "Belieber" or whatever his fanbase is referred to as nowadays, but are those who hold the project to a high standard of WP:BLP protection, even when the subject is a spoiled rich kid who doesn't deserve it. Yes, the White House "must" respond, and said responses are delegated to some minor policy wonk to deliver some tongue-in-cheek response, as the Death Star one was. It is notable enough to mention in the petition article; it has no relevance whatsoever to Bieber's biography. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody (from this section at least) has said opponents to the addition of the (negative) content are Beliebers. It is possible that they (the opponents) are merely "those who hold the project to a high standard of WP:BLP protection". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarc: Throwing things like WP:BLP and 'high standard' as an argument is totally bullshit. This is a VERY notable event with significant coverage. There has even been multiple in-depth analysis into whether he could actually be deported based on his current criminal record. The only reason I can possibly see to NOT include it is to selectively censor certain [negative] aspects of his life. Convenient suppression of speech about such events are not 'ignorance'; they are the definition of Censorship.

Your earlier argument for "It doesn't matter, these petitions are PR nonsense, there is noting particularly significant or noteworthy in getting 100,000 clicks" appears to be a classic WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. The fact is the white house doesn't consider them nonsense and just because you think it's nonsense doesn't mean you get to push your agenda onto Wikipedia. --CyberXRef^☎ 01:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"I don't like" middling, unimportant criticisms filling up a BLP article, I will not argue that point in the slightest. What Joe Random ePetition-Signer thinks of Justin Bieber is not at all relevant to his bio, there's nothing more to it than that. The fact that a thing appears in a reliable source does not get said thing an automatic entry into a Wikipedia article. We use discretion and intelligent analysis to separate the meaningful from the undue. Don't even get me started on the fanciful "deportation" angle, that's even more half-witted than this petition thing is. Tarc (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think people forget that Wikipedia's core policies are Neutral point of view (NPOV) , Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR) when It comes down to a WP:BLP. While BLP articles are to be protected against vandalism, there is no stopping the bio person's actions and the results that come with it good or bad that get reported in reliable sources. Per WP:EFFECT the petition should be included, white house petitions are already included in Death Star and as I pointed out earlier Texas secession movements#Other discussions of secession starting in 2012, what makes this article any different? If it is to protect Bieber from harm then there is an issue here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this because of the negativity, I oppose it because it is ignorant, unimportant, ephemeral fluff akin to an non-scientific online opinion poll. Trust me, if a White House petition to award Bieber a basket of puppies, a fleet of unicorns, and a million dollars a day for life gets 100,000 "people" to sign it, I'd oppose mention of that as well. Tarc (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Depends who signs. A signature by the Pope would be big news. Hey, you started with the hypotheticals. What about that photo with his friend, uh, you know, uh, each doing something with the same woman at the same time? Yikes. I will try to have more useful comments in future.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't read tabloids, so I have no idea what the thing about the women is all about. As for the Pope, sure, if the Pope says Bieber should hit the road that could be article-worthy as that would be a significant and notable person delivering an opinion. When the Pope said that Pokemon wasn't the work of the devil, that was certainly newsworthy. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

But the Pope isn't an American... right? But Senator Mark Warner is. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

May we ask for a road map, to show us where the point is? Tarc (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sen. Warner has expressed support for the petition. That surely increases noteworthiness from an important American. But the Pope isn't even American. What does he have to do with deporting Bieber from anywhere other than Argentina or the Vatican City? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate the notability of the Pope, and the influence his words have beyond the walls of the Vatican, because that is an argument that you will lose, and will look rather silly doing so. As for Senator Warner;

“As a dad with three daughters, is there some place I can sign?” Warner joked on Hampton Roads, Va., station FM 99’s “Rumble in the Morning” when asked about the petition. The Virginia Democrat also tweeted a link to the clip of his answer, confirming his position. “It’s true: I’m not a #Belieber,” Warner said.

(boldface is mine). You need to recognize the difference between going along with the gag (as noted in the beginning, I signed it as well) and serious political discourse. This was the former. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course the Pope is a very important person. If he publicly criticized Bieber it would be relevant and notable. Yet, his hypothetical signature on the petition would be as irrelevant as China's President Xi Jinping's signature because as non-Americans, why are they commenting on America's deportation policy? However, it is the other part of the petition which is more relevant - the view of Bieber as "dangerous" and a negative influence to youth - that, would be relevant and notable if endorsed by the Pope.

Warner "joked" is an interpretation. Not all sources report that he was joking, for example CNN. Even if he was joking, it doesn't mean he doesn't support the petition, the words are clear that he supports the petition. Even your Politico source is clear - look at its title - "Mark Warner wants to sign Justin Bieber petition" starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, it says "joked" right in the source, I'm afraid (hint, it's in bold). You're rapidly losing any credibility in this discussion. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you who has misunderstood me. "joked" is an interpretation not by you, but by Politico. It would have been clearer if you read my next line which said that not every source out there reported that he was joking. Out of all the lines in my reply, you focused on only one and misinterpreted it. How about the line after that which stated that regardless of whether he was joking, the main point is that he still supported the petition, and your own Politico source backed that up in its title? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

New incident: Oxygen Mask-gate

It appears that there has been a new incident since the current legal troubles content were added. @Tofutwitch11: tried to add this to the article earlier but it was reverted because it was not discussed here. @CyberXRef: brought this up at BLP/N. So here it is, NBC News conducted an investigation where they cite multiple law enforcement sources claiming that Bieber, his father and his entourage smoked so much marijuana on board their private jet that the pilots were forced to wear oxygen masks ... Bieber and his father were also “extremely abusive” to a flight attendant ... The incident was the third encounter with law enforcement in recent weeks for Bieber. Also, authorities then boarded the jet, which multiple sources said reeked of marijuana ... no unsmoked weed was found during the search. The flight landed on Friday, which would be 31 January. That's merely two days after he was charged in Toronto. This is relevant because in Bieber's first arrest of driving under the influence, he was found to have THC (a component in marijuana) in his system, and Oxygen Mask-gate is another marijuana incident. Other reliable sources (thanks CyberXRef) include Huffington Post, TIME magazine, Pakistan's Business Recorder, Kansas City's KCTV5 News, etc. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Have tagged the article (as we have in the past about the daily news posts)...we have no need for this kids stuff here (WP:BALASPS) Why Your Obsession With Justin Bieber's Troubles Says More About You Than Him. Need more adults looking over this article please! Will let this news stuff sit for a bit then remove it as its just semi-stories as we did with the pregnancy, sizzurp, marijuana, urinating and stun gun incidents and then fix the section up in a month or so. We are not here to keep a diary of the kid (WP:NOTDIARY),,,,want info of this nature go see tabloids not an encyclopaedia! Sections like this grow like a cancer....need to cut out the dead shit soon. All we need to say is hes had some legal troubles and link to an overall article on the topic (like the one linked above).- Moxy (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, since when did 'brushes / run-ins with the law' become 'kids stuff'? The content currently in the article summarising Bieber's 'past troubles' before his arrests are not 'isolated events', because they are either relevant to what he was arrested for or to demonstrate he had brushes with the law around the world. Now, pregnancy, sizzurp (???) and urinating might be considered tabloid material, but they aren't (really) brushes with the law. Therefore they are not included in the article. Now the stun gun by itself wasn't relevant but the marijuana found with the stun gun is. It's a whole new ball game with vandalism, marijuana and reckless driving. And now yet again we have another incident with marijuana on a plane. The past troubles are a summary of 2012 to 2013 so there's no way that particular paragraph can "grow like a cancer", because there isn't going to be new material from 2012 to 2013. The only paragraph is going to "grow" is the 2014 one, and that is if Bieber keeps breaking the law, or does something relevant to his current arrests / charges (marijuana / assault / driving issues) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As soon as I see an incident name with a -gate on the end, I expect it to be something of far less importance than the the journalist using that term wants us to think it is. That seems to be the case here. There are very few confirmed facts, and definitely no police charges involved. It's trivia, until something more concrete arises from it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not a journalist. I came up with that term and I know not of any journalist who has used it. Methinks you assumed too much. There's NBC News talking to law enforcement sources and a whole lot of other reliable sources reporting it. Whether it's trivial is subjective. It is already relevant because it's marijuana again and the third incident in just nine days. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not been convicted of anything at this point..if so then we have something. This shit has been happening since hes been famous and as in the past its just news fluff that will be removed from the article in time because its not relevant to his job (the reason we have an article). Do people really think only since 2012 there has been legal trouble....this is the norm for famous people....no conviction here at all at this point... a clear BIO violation. Section like this is not what we are looking for at all...as demonstrated by the many policies linked above by many different editors should be removed NOW!!! .Walls of text to jam in info like this is very concerning....so much effort for allegations. On a side note - I hope Starship.paint you dont spend your time adding things like hate or like polls of what random people think to other articles do you? Not a good idea to think that edits like these are constrictive to what we are doing here at the project. Will get others involved when I have more time here ..in the mean time best not to keep adding daily news or random polls for a bit Starship.paint....wait see what happens ...give other's time to reply to the walls of text. RfC may be the best way to get other's involved-- Moxy (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha. They've been thrown around instead of precisely applied. BLP! BLP! BLP! As if I, and the others arguing for the insertion of such content both here and on BLP/N, have not backed ourselves up by citing Wikipedia policy. Just because it's not relevant to his job doesn't mean it should not be included - please read WP:WELLKNOWN. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok so you really believe that "arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for possessing drugs" or a random poll are good additions to this article or any article?. Time to read what others have linked many times now WP:BALASPS, WP:NOTPAPER WP:NOTDIARY, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -- Moxy (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I really believe so. Because opponents somehow keep leaving out the fact that Lil Za wasn't arrested on the streets, he was arrested right in the middle of Bieber's home. Police weren't even purposely looking for Lil Za, they were searching Bieber's home for a felony vandalism case and apparently found drugs in 'plain view' within Bieber's home. Meanwhile the 'random' poll highlights what Americans think of Bieber, which is his public image. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)