Misplaced Pages

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages'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. - 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 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Poll regarding Bieber's image in America

I see my added content regarding Bieber's image in America at the time of May 2013 has been reverted. Here is the content: Back in May 2013, a poll by Public Policy Polling found that Bieber's favorability ratings among Americans were 20% positive and 54% negative, and that he was the only artist in the poll who had a majority unfavorability rating across all party lines, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents. First reverted by Drmies: a poll regarding his image: trivial. we have way too much trivia already I reverted that with might I point out WP:TRIVIAL goes to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Info has reliable sec src. even if there is "too much trivia", why didn't you target the other trivia? Secondly reverted by Moxy WOW just wow horrible grade 2 addiction...this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid. Need more adults looking over this please!! - and Moxy, lay off your "horrible grade 2 addiction" personal attacks, which is further amplified by your insinuation that there is a lack of "adults" here, so what are you calling everyone editing the article now? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I originally added the content to the Style, image and fans section. This content follows WP:WELLKNOWN: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative. Relevant? This is regarding Bieber's public image in America, his country of residence, that's how its relevant. Well documented? Other than the LA Times source I added, it has also been covered by TIME magazine, US News, Huffington Post etc. Noteworthy? Keep in mind, this poll was done in May 2013, even before his arrests. The reliable sources also focused on the information that out of the eight artists (Adele, Bieber, Beyonce, Brown, Jay-Z, Timberlake, Gaga, or Rihanna) only Bieber was 'universally' disliked by a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? Our job is to compile important factual information about our subjects, not to feed the frenzy. From the facts we present our readers can make up heir own minds. We don't need to know what they think. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? So we know what his public image is. That would go in the image section. Is this poll not proof of Bieber's image in America? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But to me it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

See "WP:Unencyclopedic", it is an empty argument. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, can you imagine it being included in Encyclopædia Britannica? HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If the Bieber article in Encyclopædia Britannica had a sub-section for his image, then yes, I think it would be. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: you linked an essay, of which the subject is article deletion. Decisions about what information to include about a notable subject are judged differently. "Unencyclopedic," aka "not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia" is a completely valid rationale. VQuakr (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry VQuakr, was I wrong to link to Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, of which "Just unencyclopedic" is a sub-section? It's not that "unencyclopedic" is invalid, it's that there was no justification at all for the argument. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's that there was no justification at all for the argument. If you are going to convince anyone of this, you will need to provide a reason rather than just contradiction. You presented verifiable information (a poll), and other editors (3 so far if you do not count me) noted that it seemed too tabloid-ey. It seems to me that you need to spend a little more time on constructive talk page edits less time on edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I believe I both reverted and discussed. See my above comments at 06:50, 9 February 2014 and 07:00, 9 February 2014. I'm not sure how to argue on "tabloid-ey"ness - I prefer to argue on its relevancy, noteworthiness and documentation - which I have done so above. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The history tab is public; you re-inserted the same content (edit warred) at 6:12 before attempting any discussion. In any case, it sounds like four other editors (counting myself in that group now, having considered it) generally agree that this content should not be included in the article when considering our mandate to write responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. Is an RfC really needed? VQuakr (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at the timeline here. First, Drmies removes my edit on the poll saying rm a poll regarding his image: trivial. we have way too much trivia already Yes, I reverted at 06:12 saying might I point out WP:TRIVIAL goes to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Info has reliable sec src. even if there is "too much trivia", why didn't you target the other trivia? Then, Moxy removes it again, but seeing as there was more opposition, I started a discussion on the talk page. You can demonize me for the single revert I made on 06:12 - all I did was, when Drmies did not link to policy, simply stating trivia, I reverted with the edit summary that WP:TRIVIAL by itself is not a good standalone argument. It's not as if I reverted thrice, and only after that started an issue on the talk page. And why an RfC is needed, it's because Moxy appears to want to remove the whole legal issues section including his charges, not only the content regarding the poll. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The three revert rule is a bright-line limit, not an entitlement. "rm a poll regarding his image: trivial. we have way too much trivia already" is a completely valid edit summary, and you edit warred by putting the edit back in while misquoting the previous edit summary (and making an error regarding where WP:TRIVIAL redirects in the process). In any case, there is a pretty clear consensus not to include this poll, so I suggest we move on. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Time for an RfC on all this shit again. I have removed the section that clearly does not have consensus as seen above. Cant believe for the 10th time we have to do this. Will set this up tommorow so its not done in the middle of the night..as we want experienced editors to comment.-- Moxy (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead with the RfC. I see you have not stopped with your jibes. Would you like your content to be labelled as "all this shit"? And instead of saying adults you tweak to "older editors" / "experienced editors". I dare say experienced editors have already made their comments on this issue. Dr. Blofeld and Werldwayd are two for example. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What you have said does not change the fact many have raised concerns about the content be it they or me calling it "kids stuff" etc... Best we get more involved ...also lets try and keep the walls of text to a minimum. I see that this has been reverted again... O well will just have to wait..concerning that the last RfC on the section is being ignored again. A question Starship.paint .. do you really believe random polls have a place here in reference works (what a encyclopaedia is) -- in other words have other's complained about this on other articles?. -- Moxy (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny you ask for less text but proceed to post a reply longer than my earlier post. Many have raised concerns about the content yes, but also a significant number of editors have come out in support of the content. I don't believe that this particular poll on Bieber is "random", and I think that as long as this article has an specific section on Bieber's image, that poll is relevant and belongs in there. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that the last BLPN on January 3, 2014 got it removed and page locked ...as have all the other BLPN in the past. This fact and the fact many have a concern here again demonstrates to all there is clearly no consensus. Even had a BLPN just on the flag thing.-- Moxy (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of that. So was it a previous BLP/N discussion, or a previous RfC? dame all back again even had a RfC on the section before Might I state my opinion that BLP/N discussions will tend to have numerous proponents of BLP possibly skewing responses. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Might I also point out that during that previous BLP/N discussion on January 3, Bieber had not been arrested even once yet. Now that he has, a lot of his past "troubles" become more relevant and notable. So that previous discussion is unfortunately outdated. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep will have to have a new talk (as has been mentioned many times now)...just would be nice if our editors could follow our basic conduct expectations instead of many edit warning with many others over and over. We should not have to lookup this article so often...ever time he makes the news. The behaviour here is an example of what we dont want to see. How many have to revert before this is clear.... ten more times? This does not look good at all for many -- Moxy (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, judging by your most recent edits to this article, I don't think you have any business getting on a high horse. I'm not sure how I have broken the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - in fact I believe that is exactly what I have done. I also believe that a majority of the article's content is backed by news reports - naturally content will be added when he makes the news. However there's no need to reply - concentrate on your RfC please. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I bet you dont want a reply to that and my few edits. Because we can all see this shit people have causes - There have been reverts almost everyday since the 25th of January by many editors. This behaviour is not what we are looking for in our editors - in fact its embarrassing for us all. Even supporters have a problem with portions of the edits and keep having to fix them over and over and over. Do you really think edit waring in the content that has already been discussed and rejected is a good idea ... most think not and is why we have rules to prevent such things. So will set up an RfC later today getting more involved. Elvis is a great example here... see any shitty news stuff or even a source from the news there....please dont base articles on news stories that are ongoing and will be dead links in 2 weeks time. All we need to say is hes had legal trouble over the past few years ranging from vandalism to DUI charges. Dont need to report the guess work or make the items stand-out in there own section when it can be set in a normal section (again we have policies for this). Also why do we need 8 sources all regurgitating the same thing for one statement... news spam and major link rot to come is again not helpful. -- Moxy (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep alluding that I am guilty of "embarrassing" behavior, but you seem to ignore the fact that you, Moxy, are guilty of multiple reverts yourself. If you weren't, perhaps you would be better positioned to comment. What's more, your edit summaries while removing the content are inflammatory: WOW just wow horrible grade 2 addiction...this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid. Need more adults looking over this please!!) and NO best we "err on the side of caution" Was there any point to the caps lock? Also, perhaps eight sources I needed so people can actually realize how much coverage of Bieber's legal issues are happening in reliable sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Vocal range

In the beginning of Justin Bieber's music career, during his teenage years (like when he was 15 years old), he can sing high notes. As he was growing up, his voice matures. It has proven scientifically that the men's larynx, a.k.a. Adam's apple, generally deepens up the men's voice as a transition from puberty to adolescence to adulthood. For his vocal range, I think he has a tenor vocal range. What do you think about his vocal range? Sherlock502 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You can debate on what you think his vocal range is, but if you want content to be actually added to the article, go out there and find a reliable source that backs you up! starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I will find a reliable source that will back up my theory. You can count on it. Sherlock502 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a source that explicitly says so, then Misplaced Pages:Be bold and add it to the article. You can always come back here to discuss if someone reverts you (but I don't see why they should if you can cite a reliable source). Good day. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you that there are many reliable sources to choose from like CNN or ABC. I can only pick out sources that might come in handy just to support my hypothesis. Here are the few sources I pulled out:

2. www.theweek.com/article/index/250700/listen-to-justin-biebers-new-single-heartbreaker

3. www.examiner.com/article/justin-bieber-mania-what-makes-this-young-singer-so-hot

Let me know what you think. Sherlock502 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly the article's been locked for a month, so... erm, you might have to wait a month. We can still discuss the sources though. If after some time we've worked out the exact content to add and there is no dissent it might be possible to ask an admin to edit it into the article, but I'm not 100% sure that it will or even can happen. Source 1: CNN, is reliable, but doesn't support the claim at all. She was intrigued by the "tone and tenor" of what the young teen had to say - nope. Source 2 and 3 support the claim, but erm, the sources themselves, I'm not sure if they're reliable. I've never heard of the Week, but it seems like a news magazine so it might be passable. I have heard of Examiner but similarly I don't actually know if it is a reliable source. Other editors need to weigh in on the reliability of sources 2 and 3, meanwhile hopefully you can come up with even more sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just kind of prowling right now but I noticed a source from Examiner. Examiner is not a reliable source. This thread I started recently to ask why does a better job of explaining it than I do (I had wanted to use an article from it only to realize I was basically resurrecting a dead horse long since turned into glue). LazyBastardGuy 20:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Examiner was not reliable because it used to be a content farm. It has since ('04-06) changed a lot. The global ban should probably be re-evaluated on Meta. But since it's still blocked, one could probably find an alternative source to that of the Examiner anyway. --CyberXRef 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. I have spent my time finding the rest of the sources that I can think of to support my theory of Justin Bieber's tenor vocal range. Here are the sources:

1. www.billboard.com/articles/review/1071084/justin-bieber-one-time

2. www.nowtoronto.com/music/story.cfm?content=184559

3. http://rapfix.mtv.com/2011/08/28/justin-bieber-remixes-drake-trust-issues/

4. www.pluggedin.com/music/tracks/2012/justin-bieber-boyfriend.aspx

5. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2013/02/snl_sound-off_justin_bieber.php

6. www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/08/15/bieber_review.html

As always, let me know what do you think. Sherlock502 (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry @Sherlock502: to have missed your comment for so long. Source 1 is excellent. Source 2 is not acceptable, you have someone commenting he's going to have a tenor. I don't like Source 3 because it says Auto-Tune "rendered" his voice to a tenor. Source 4 is good. Source 5 is borderline because it says "blogs" in the web-link itself, which questions its reliability. Source 6 is great.

Between source 1, 4 and 6, I'd say you have passed. Now it's time for you to propose what content would be added to the article based on the sources. The article will be unprotected in four days or so. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean proposing what content would be added to article based on the sources? Does it mean that I can add whatever sources that I have to the article? Sherlock502 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I mean, what is the content sentence you are going to insert into the article? Bieber's voice has since matured into that of a tenor vocal range? Such content must be supported by sources, namely 1, 4 and 6. How are you going to word it @Sherlock502:? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Stick to sources 1, 4, and 6 as part of the content. I don't know if that is the answer you want, but that's my final word. Sherlock502 (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused now @Sherlock502:. Apparently his tenor is pre-puberty, especially from what Source 4 says? In 2009 (in his early career) at the age of 15, Source 1 (Billboard) said it's tenor. In 2010 at the age of 16, Source 6 (Dispatch) says "Bieber's tenor voice, clearly facing an pubescent expiration date". In 2012, Source 4 (Plugged In) says "Instead of... his trademark high tenor", so the trademark must be referring to the previous years. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Because his voice, like I said about the men's larynx, changes throughout puberty, his teenage years, and career whereas his voice matures and deepens up when he grows up in later years. Sherlock502 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, his voice as a tenor would slightly change in his early to mid 20s to early 30s. Sherlock502 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

From this day forth, as of tomorrow, I am proposing to use sources 1, 4, and 6, as well as an article from the Week (that is mention in earlier comments), to add as part of the content about his vocal range in the article. Sherlock502 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sherlock502:, go ahead, article is unprotected. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for everything starship.paint (talk | ctrb). I will be seeing you again no doubt. Sherlock502 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected

This article has been fully protected for a month. The last time it was fully protected, there was very little discussion. I'd like to hope that this time, given it's locked for a month, there will be some discussion over the topics that have been causing edit wars lately. Whether it be through an RfC, continued discussions here, a straw poll, etc, some consensus' have to be reached. Otherwise, nobody will be editing here until March 10th. Gloss • talk 01:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes best we lock it up for now as there is no dead line for anything. Making a Rfc now...see below in a few minutes. -- Moxy (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Behaviour and legal issues

In regards to specific points (1-15) for most of them there is not enough feedback to determine a consensus, but I will say that there is NOT a consensus to NOT include. However, as this is a BLP, every incident must have high quality non-tabloid sources to be included, and incidents which received minimal temporary coverage should probably not be called out individually.

#7 and #13 appear to have the closest thing to consensus for non inclusion, however as that section was opened after the main RFC, its results are suspect as many may have not seen it.

However, collectively, it is clear that there is a consensus that these incidents are forming a larger portion of Bieber's reputation and notability.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To what extent should we cover Justin Bieber behaviour and legal issues that have been covered by major news media the past few years (as outlined here and here). Secondly should we give the results of polls on what people think of him and the petition to deport Bieber? So what should be included or excluded if anything at all is what we are looking for comments on. Bellow in the quotes can be-found the content that is contested with sources.

1. How much detail should be given to legal problems?
2. Does the legal problems warrant a separate section?
3. Should we include public polls?
4. Should we include the White House deportation petition?

-- Moxy (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Overview

Let me explain how we are here... recently there have been some edit wars over the fact there should/or should not be detailed information and a sub section on his behaviour and legal issues ranging from vandalism to DUI arrest (again as outlined here and here) and should we include the White House deportation petition and public poll. The article has been locked-up till March 10th - thus we all have lots of time to work all this out. (Note: all users from previous discussions on these topics have been notified of this RfC)

There is 2 sides to the argument those that wish to report events with details and those that think most events have no place in a BIO in detail and/or at all.

Policies and essays people have been quoting thus far:

• For inclusion - WP:RS, WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:EFFECT, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC (essay) and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (essay)

• For exclusion - WP:BALASPS, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTDIARY, WP:TRIVIAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Note the article as of right now has more source then bellow:

References

1. ^ "Bieber's image: From boy-next-door to bad boy". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
2. "Singing or sinking? Justin Bieber hits new low". Boston.com. Retrieved 25 January 2014. For more than a year, Justin Bieber has had more tabloid hits than Billboard hits: The singer's music career has taken a backseat to his wild boy antics, and a new arrest for a DUI charge marks a new low for the Grammy-nominated pop star.
3. ^ "Justin Bieber: a timeline of the pop star's rise and fall". CTV News. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
4. ^ "Justin Bieber - Growing up disgracefully". BBC News. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
5. ^ "Justin Bieber on Miami drink-drive charge after 'road racing'". BBC News. Retrieved 25 January 2014. Cite error: The named reference "BBCFirstArrest" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
6. ^ Bandyopadhyay, Bohni. "Justin Bieber busted: Are you surprised?". The Times of India. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
7. ^ Fisher, Luchina. "Justin Bieber Arrested for DUI: Inside His Past Troubles". ABC News. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
8. "Justin Bieber's Miami Beach arrest is more culmination than aberration". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
9. "Bieber tops Muslim Brotherhood on list of White House petitions". MarketWatch. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
10. "The White House Now Has to Respond to the Petition to Deport Justin Bieber". Reuters. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
11. "Petition to deport Justin Bieber may be reviewed by White House". CNN News. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
12. Selby, Jenn. "Justin Bieber arrest latest: Mayor of Toronto Rob Ford defends 'successful' fellow Canadian". The Independent. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
13. "Bieber tops Muslim Brotherhood on list of White House petitions". MarketWatch. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
14. "Music Poll Results - Day One". Public Policy Polling. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
15. "Justin Bieber polls unfavorably across party lines — ouch!". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
16. Anderson, Curt and Kay, Jennifer. "Bieber's image: From boy-next-door to bad boy". Associated Press. Retrieved 25 January 2014.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
17. ^ Cite error: The named reference APImage was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
18. Cite error: The named reference LAtimesCulm was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
19. "Justin Bieber arrested in Miami". USA Today. January 23, 2014. Retrieved January 23, 2014.
20. "Justin Bieber arrest report". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 30 January 2014.
21. "Police: Bieber Charged With Resisting Arrest". ABC News. January 23, 2014. Retrieved January 23, 2014.
22. "Justin Bieber Leaves Jail After DUI Charge". news.sky.com. Sky. Retrieved 23 January 2014.
23. Saad, Nardine. "Justin Bieber's toxicology report released; Toronto mayor sympathizes". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
24. "Justin Bieber toxicology report: Marijuana, Xanax". USA Today. Retrieved 31 January 2013.
25. Martell, Allison; Hodgson, Jeffrey. "Canadian police charge Justin Bieber with assaulting limo driver". Reuters. Retrieved 30 January 2014.
26. "Justin Bieber charged with Toronto limo driver assault". BBC. Retrieved 30 January 2014.
27. "Justin Biber arrested for 2nd time in a week". CBS News. 30 Jan. 2014. Retrieved 30 January 2014. Police allege Bieber was one of six people who were picked up by a limousine from a nightclub in the early morning hours of Dec. 30, and there was an altercation while en route to a hotel. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
28. "Music Poll Results - Day One". Public Policy Polling. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
29. "Justin Bieber polls unfavorably across party lines — ouch!". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
30. "The White House Now Has to Respond to the Petition to Deport Justin Bieber". Reuters. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
31. "Petition to deport Justin Bieber may be reviewed by White House". CNN News. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
32. Selby, Jenn. "Justin Bieber arrest latest: Mayor of Toronto Rob Ford defends 'successful' fellow Canadian". The Independent. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
33. "Bieber tops Muslim Brotherhood on list of White House petitions". MarketWatch. Retrieved 31 January 2014.

Point-by-point survey

To be explicit on what to include and what not to include, I have separated the content (taking into account some of the edit by InedibleHulk) into points. Please post on whether you would support inclusion of each piece of information for the article. If you wish to further trim you have to elaborate. This will be tedious, but it will be very clear. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay since Precision123 missed the point-by-point survey but posted in the "general" survey, I'm moving this whole "Point-by-point survey" section up so people will see it first. I believe I have notified all users who have already posted in this RfC (JimeoWan on fr.wiki) about this starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please post your responses in the Responses to above points section just below the 15th point that Purplewowies created. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

1) Bieber has had several run-ins with the law around the world before his first arrest in 2014.

2) In 2013, Bieber was charged in Brazil with vandalism; and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities.

3) Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.

4) Police in Detroit and Stockholm each raided Bieber's tour buses in 2013 while Bieber was not present;. They found marijuana in Detroit, and unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in Stockholm.

5) Nine days before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested his friend Lil Za for cocaine possession.

6) On January 23, 2014, Bieber was arrested in Miami Beach, on suspicion of driving under the influence, driving with an (over six month) expired licence and resisting arrest without violence.

7) According to police, he was driving a Lamborghini and R&B singer Khalil, who was also arrested, was driving a Ferrari.

8) Bieber was released on a $2,500 bond.

9) A toxicology report revealed Bieber had THC (a component in marijuana) and the anti-anxiety medication Xanax alprazolam in his system when arrested.

10) On January 29, Bieber surrendered to Toronto police, who charged him with assaulting a limousine driver in Toronto on December 30, 2013.

11) It was reported that during a private flight on January 31, Bieber, his father and entourage filled the plane with so much marijuana smoke that that the pilots had to don oxygen masks.

12) Back in May 2013, a poll by Public Policy Polling found that Bieber's favorability ratings among Americans were 20% positive and 54% negative,

13) and that he was the only artist in the poll who had a majority unfavorability rating across all party lines, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents.

14) 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.

15) The petition attracted over 200,000 signatures, becoming the most popular of all open White House petitions within days.

Responses to above points

• I say 7, 12, and 13 don't really merit inclusion (unless the latter two have been covered in several sources). The rest I will need to address later. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For 12 and 13, reference 29 above by the Los Angeles Times is one source. Here's other sources by Huffington Post, National Post and CNS News. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• For 7, I think "Lamborghini" and "Ferrari" can go, but his friend Khalil being arrested too is still notable - look at the other incidents involving his friends / entourage. For 8, released on bond is notable but "$2,500" can go. 13 can possibly go, but it's also a point for noteworthiness of the poll. All the rest not mentioned, I support inclusion. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you for breaking this down for us. I agree with @Starship.paint: about 7 and 8. I do not believe 12 or 13 merit inclusion. I am borderline about 3 and 5; I think this would depend on their treatment by reliable secondary sources. I support inclusion for the rest. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Precision123. There is really no doubt about reliable secondary sources for any of these points. For point 3, see reference 5 by BBC, reference 7 (ABC News) and reference 16 (Associated Press). For point 5, see reference 16 again, reference 4 (BBC) and reference 8 (LA Times). Keep in mind, these sources were not written when the incidents happened. They were all written at the time of his first arrest (last month) whereas the incidents have happened from back in 2012, 2013 and nine days before his first arrest. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, @Starship.paint:. In that case I have no problem with inclusion of those. I think the poll is a bit too "recent" (WP:RECENT), and I generally agree with you on the other points mentioned. --Precision123 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry -- this is not how discussions normally occur for BLPs and I decline to play a game here -- the point is that the BLP is so filled with cruft that it became an example to the world of what not to have in a BLP. Cheers -- but do not expect me to contribute to the "wall of text" discussion now or ever. Collect (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree this tabloid stuff and random polls is not what a real adult encyclopaedia would have. But there is not much we can do here as the younger people interested in him come from a generation of celebrity news. Lucky for Elvis he was around long before daily celeb news....he had much worst with legal problems, drugs and the ladies...but at the time news did not care...there was no TMZ to follow him around all day. Just imagen the section that could be on MJ and his drug problems. Its discouraging to say the least that we have editors that push for this stuff but al least the majority thus far see the random polls are BS.-- Moxy (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Moxy, please stop with the "real adult encyclopaedia" shtick. Thanks. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

13 is especially meaningless. 7 is trivial. 12 has some significance. The rest seem ok.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just to summarize our views, here are the ones that look like they are not getting support for inclusion: 7 (except for maybe what @Starship.paint: proposed to salvage) & 13. Points 8 & 12 have a minimal/mixed level of support for inclusion; it looks like most people do not feel too strongly one way or the other. So we can continue from there. --Precision123 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Since this is a bio, I don't see the relevance of including a detailed chronological order of events which are better suited in a tabloid rather than on WP. Maybe a paragraph summarizing the highlights of his top most newsworthy escapades, but I wouldn't go into detail. Reserve his pages for life changing events, and things that actually have meaning in defining who he is as a talent. Atsme (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, it's already a summary. The least notable brushes with the law have already been omitted, these are the most notable ones. He's really done much more "controversial" stuff than is being discussed here. Also, what's wrong with chronological? His musical career is certainly chronological. Points 2-3-4 above are not chronological. 5-11 are chronological because many legal issues have cropped up within roughly 14-16 days. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know the details of each story, but I'd say 3, 7, 9, 11, 13 feel more or less superfluous, and 14's wording makes it take the petition too seriously. But I didn't take the time to check how each fact matches the different policies, things are getting too bureaucratic for me over here. --JimeoWan (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• I really don't care in reality, just be sensible with what is included and avoid the really trivial tabloid stuff.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• 1-10 should be included. The rest should only be included with high-quality sources, ideally a national newspaper or the like. Andrew 10:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• User Starship.paint should be complemented for his efforts. Actually Justin Bieber page on Misplaced Pages is consulted quite often, so our coverage needs to be seen as definitive of what is relevant and what is not. Sadly recently people are more interested in his run-ins with the law everywhere to the point of becoming an epidemic. I don't know how much of it is staged for keeping media talking about him and how much is real problems he is suffering from. For me 1 is absolutely crucial to include. 2. Only vandalism in Brazil as he was charged on this. Australian and Colombian authorities being upset is not relevant. Exclude any mention. 3. Complaints about reckless driving are relevant. Also mention something about the egg throwing on a neighbour. It ties in well in this. 4. No need. No charges were laid. If later on Sweden and Detroit authorities do press charges, then include. Or else just ignore. 5. Include fully. Very relevant 6. Include fully. Word for word. 7. Very relevant. But include only "R&B singer Khalil was also arrested". No need for car marks. 8. Include 9. Include with all details of drugs in his system. 10. Include 100%. He was properly charged. He is appearing in court. 11. Don't include. probably an exaggeration. No legal consequences. Why is the father mentioned anyway. Just irrelevant. remove all. 12. No no no. Remove completely. Other surveys say his popularity was not drastically effected, but that he gained more following and attention -- The Miley Cyrus syndrome. 13. This is a lot of bull. What does that have to do with Republicans or Democrats? Remove totally. 14. Delete these words "Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by". Keep all the rest. "In late January 2014, a was 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." 15. Absolutely keep with need to follow up when the White House reaction comes. As for me, I never much cared for Justin Bieber in person. But I changed my mind when I saw the documentary. Somewhere in the section, there should be a social and psychological analysis of the phenomenon of pressure young artists suffer at the peak of their success and how it ruins their lives and careers. Hopefully Bieber will come to his senses as he is an intelligent boy indeed. werldwayd (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• OMG TLDR, I appreciate the intention of improving the article however we are likely delving into trivial detail when the average reader is looking for more broad strokes, and any meaning to these activities. i think the main points are that he is an over-watched, and over-analyzed celebrity, ergo his actions are under a microscope. This point should be woven into the narrative so it's unmistakeable. I just today saw a report that some of his recent behavior is tied to his father re-inserting himself as the go-to male authority figure replacing Scooter. This would seem to be relevant. Many of the minor incidents are of interest only to a small portion of readers and will likely be removed in time. I suggest moving some, or most, of these to a footnote (see Harvey Milk for how this looks, and can be done). In that way you can denote the most noteworthy incidents, and still have, for those invested, details, and links to sources, about other less important ones. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• 1: too vague, no. 2: who cares? was he convicted? but mostly, who cares? 3: this is about neighbors, not Bieber, unless he's been charged. 4: this is not about Bieber, leave it out. 5: not about Bieber, leave it out. 6. notable unless he was never charged, in which case not notable. 7: by itself this is not about Bieber. If they were racing, say that. 8. factual, ok, but who cares? 9. these are interesting if he was impaired; otherwise, not. 10 OK, if he was charged. Otherwise, gossipy, but not outright inappropriate to include. 11. unless this was reported and someone was charged, it's too gossipy. 13. who cares? not notable. 14/15. 200k people responded? That's not a very big number for Bieber, sad to say. I don't think this is notable—it's more about the pollers than about Bieber. Abhayakara (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

General survey

If you are a new commenter to this RfC, please also read the Point-by-point survey section above and post your opinion in the Responses to above points section for further clarity.

• Minor inclusion Just need to mention hes had some trouble with a link (source) that list all the incidents. No need to regurgitate news guess work or mention specifics till courts has resolved the problems. All the above info is just overwhelming (undue weight). No need for info on polls and the like. -- Moxy (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Separate section for legal troubles, minimal coverage of the rest. The legal issues are very much in the news and covered by many reliable sources. Polling maybe deserves a passing mention but not its own section. The deportation petition should be referenced only insofar as reliable sources discuss it. Andrew 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - I believe most of the content should be included. I think the past troubles paragraph should remain untouched, will explain below. The next paragraph on what he has been charged with is to be mentioned with the utmost priority, but that paragraph itself could do with a little bit of trimming (Lamborghini). I'm open to some trimming for the poll and petition but I definitely think they should be included in the article within the Style image and fans section. No opinion yet on whether a separate legal section is needed. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support the stuff that attracts police or government attention, Oppose the stuff that merely gets the "little people" fired up. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above. Its finding a balance. You can't ignore the legal problems but we also don't want to list every trivial offence. A separate section is definitely appropriate and gleaning the basics.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Remove most as not being encyclopedic. Misplaced Pages should not be a tabloid, and should not be used in furtherance of any crusade against any living person - the task is to write articles that a person far removed from the National Enquirer will see as being neutrally sourced and worded. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize some of the more notable antics, give a few examples, and then let it go. We're not going to bullet-list every down & dirty thing a spoiled celebrity does. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of current Legal issues section, as nearly everything is relevant to the most notable event (the DUI arrest), as has been explained in above sections and abides by WP:WELLKNOWN. If anything must be removed we should have consensus for it, and not just axe the whole paragraph like some have tried to do before. However, the poll/petition can be cut out as it is general trivia and unencyclopedic. That is, unless the petition actually results in his deportation. STATic message me! 14:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of the legal issues as a distinct section in "Personal life", and support moving "Style, image and fans" below "Personal life", as Bieber's legal problems are particularly relevant in the way it impacts his image to the public. If Bieber ends up with a lot of legal stories, might change my view to Summarize. Also support the mention of the petition through a simple paragraph, and maybe a brief mention of polls to give it more context. Bieber has a very polarized image which would be better understood thanks to all this information. --JimeoWan (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion – most of his legal issues that are well known and can be easily verifiable under an appropriate section under "Personal life". We don't need to dive into too much detail for each issue, but they need a mention. Additionally some things such as the polling do deserve at least a passing mention. As per some of the suggestions above, the later part of the “Style, image and fans” is tightly linked to his legal issues. It could enjoy a slight reorganization, perhaps moved some of it to that legal issues section. --CyberXRef 06:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - particularly his legal problems. I also support giving enough credit in his Misplaced Pages article to the petition and campaign for his extradition from the States and revoking of his green card / residency. Even the earlier smaller incidents were a clear signal and prelude for his big legal problems in USA and in Canada. Other artists have been in more minimal controversy, an odd media declaration here or there, and we have covered it. Here we have a case of massive media coverage and we are still discussing whether to include them, particularly the case of the petition that garnered tens of thousands of signatures and has reached the White House after fulfilling the 100,000 threshold? We are just being over-sensitive and over-protective of an artist who is now in a downward spiral and ever-deepening problems with the law. These are significant enough to put his whole artistic future in jeopardy, even him threatening to stop his career... so they are very significant. Polls better be left out though. This is not a matter of personal opinions of fans or opponents for that matter. By the way, I have great sympathy for the artist and have been following his output for a very long time now. werldwayd (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion Everything that is currently in the legal issues section MINUS the poll as it is trivial. The other information is backed up by reliable sources, and has undergone ongoing notability. As I have said in the BLP noticeboard if you want to disinclude this section then where should be a wikipedia-wide consensus on how we deal with legal issues in BLP articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Remove most. The thrust of an article should be what the person is notable for. He's a musician and and that's what we want to cover, mostly. His personal life is peripheral to that, and to the extent we cover it, we want stuff like his background that contributed to his craft. Per WP:BLP we want to go very light on including material that is deprecatory, especially if it's trivial as it mostly is here. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR overrides what is written in WP:BLP as these core wikipedia policies are what makes up the BLP policy. The fact is that his legal issues have the widespread coverage to pass WP:N Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• What an interesting claim. WP:NPOV also mandates removal of the cruft here, as does WP:BLP. WP:N is not relevant here -- it is specifically about whether a topic is notable enough for its own article, and has nothing to do with the weight given a topic in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that "The thrust of an article should be what the person is notable for." However in this case Bieber is a notable musician within a targeted age group. His notability as this type of musician makes his behaviour extremely notable to everyone else which is why the media cover his actions in such detail compared to most other "artists". If it makes the news for any length of time it has to be notable enough for inclusion. Wayne (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in proportion to the amount of coverage in reliable sources and signifigance to his career/life. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support some inclusion (1) Details of legal problems should be given due weight only, (2) if long enough, they may warrant a separate section. (3) No public polls are necessary. Public polls change all the time. WP:Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. (4) Include the White House deportation petition only if it has been referred to by several reliable secondary sources. --Precision123 (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support some inclusion. He's a worldwide high-profile celebrity, so it's reported on what he wears, and when he goes to the bathroom. Hindsight will prove invaluable here. So will pushing borderline material into footnotes. Try to identify the most notable incidents and cover them minimally. Look to bundling the rest "also ran" episodes into footnotes, because the main point is the same. He gets into trouble. Cite that he does, and talk about why that is, and what effect it has on his work. The briefer it is, the more likely someone will actually read it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Remove most. Most of what's currently in the article is not about Bieber. Okay, there was illegal stuff on his tour bus. He wasn't arrested or charged for it. Doesn't belong in the article. The pot smoke on the plane story is pure hearsay, doesn't belong in the article. On the other hand, he was arrested and put in jail in Miami. That clearly belongs in the article. If he's subsequently convicted or exonerated, that belongs in the article as well. Fluffing this section out with stuff that's essentially gossip is POV and should not be sustained. Abhayakara (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Remove most per above, as much of it is just celebrity muckraking gossip, nothing that significantly contributes to the subject's biography. An encyclopedia article should reflect and summarize what reliable sources say about a person, not re-paste every drip and drop of coverage that exists. Be selective, and intelligent. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that this is exactly what is being done. It's already a summary of reliable sources. Not every "gossipy" and controversial issue is mentioned. The minor and unnotable ones have already been deleted before this RfC existed. It's like you're asking for a summary of a summary. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 22:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• All we need to say is " hes had legal trouble over the past few years ranging from vandalism to DUI charges". We dont need to mention details that are still being reported and in the court process. We aslo dont need to mention what others are doing because of him like petition and/or poll results or what his friends have been involved in. -- Moxy (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Every charge should be mentioned. "What others are doing because of him" is relevant to Bieber's public image. "what his friends have been involved in" - Khalil was arrested together with Bieber during the DUI charge. Lil Za was arrested in Bieber's own home for possessing drugs. Bieber's entourage was found to have marijuana in Sweden - ties in with the first arrest of Bieber having THC in his system, a component of marijuana. Recently Bieber and his entourage was reported to be smoking marijuana on a plane by NBC News - his entourage is clearly significant to his problems. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• IMHO, the key thing is to remember that we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. What goes in the article now is what would be significant to the reader 10–20 years from now. Should his legal troubles be covered in depth? For his sake, I hope not. I hope it'll be sufficient to have a sentence or two, along the lines of what Moxy said above. In the worst case hypothetical speculation, the current charges might only be a sentence or two in a hypothetical future section about some major incident leading to his hypothetical future jailing/deportation/etc. So, in a sense, it's too early to say that his current legal issues are that significant.

Likewise, I think the petition is only a temporary thing, and nothing will come of it. It's interesting, but Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of interesting facts. It might be worth mentioning the petition and the polls in one sentence in the section on public image/perception, but I don't think it warrants a lot of coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I really think his current legal troubles will remain important in his long-term biography. Polling and petitions won't and only deserve passing mention. However, he has had so many legal problems in different places that they are an important part of his life. It's important that only reliable sources be used, but his problems have been in the Washington Post, New York Times, etc. Andrew 06:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your The deportation petition should be referenced only insofar as reliable sources discuss it. comment in the Survey section above, there's Reuters, CNN, The Independent and MarketWatch already cited. If you are not satisfied with those, how about Forbes, TIME, ABC News, CNN News and Toronto Sun? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• My 2c as someone who is not remotely interested in his music. Regarding the above...Legal problems section - first paragraph is ok but the second paragraph is too detailed...the first and last sentences should be adequate cover. Regarding the Public poll section - It's trivia and should be deleted. I see no real problem with the Public White House deportation petition section although maybe it doesn't deserve it's own section. Why not just add it to the end of the Legal problems section? Wayne (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The poll and petition aren't meant to have their own sections. There is a "Style, image and fans" section in the article, and I believe both the poll and the petition should go in there, because both are relevant to his image or perception. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to edit the titles in the grey boxes to make it more apparent. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• First I'd like to state that all content here is reliably sourced, there should be no question about that. Now, going to get the poll and the petition out of the way first. Both are relevant to his public image. An image section exists in the article. This should go in there. Bonus points for noteworthiness - his poll revealed he was the only artiste surveyed disliked across party lines, while the petition was the most popular open one on the White House website. I'll understand if people would want to trim the poll and the petition, but strongly disagree on removing them altogether.
• I'll be very surprised if anyone actually wants to take out the information on what he's been charged for out of the article (vandalism, DUI, driving with an (over six months) expired licence and for resisting arrest without violence, assault) - this is the most "serious" information on what's he's done. A little trimming is okay - Lamborghini, Ferrari and $2500 can go. So can "surrendered to Toronto police" instead you can replace with 'Toronto police charged him with...' is fine. But, other info is important. Khalil arrested together with Bieber is significant because Bieber's friends / entourage has caused him problems in the past (more on that in next para). THC and Xanax are important so we can clarify what he was DUI for.
• Past troubles - one isolated "controversial" incident probably is not noteworthy. Problem is that Bieber has been involved in a series of unsavoury incidents even before his first arrest - a pattern can probably be discerned. In this CTV source alone, a timeline is described where Bieber on average is involved in more than one incident per month in 2013 itself, while there were still incidents in 2011 and 2012 also. That's why you have reliable sources saying his first arrest is 'more culmination than aberration'. Instead of mentioning every past incident, this past troubles paragraph is already a summary, it actually mentions only four "types" of incidents, which were either related to his first arrest or backs up "run-ins with the law around the world ". Less serious incidents like urinating, Anne Frank a Belieber or lawsuits where he wasn't charged were not included. You have him charged for vandalism in Brazil, then his graffiti in Australia and Colombia become more notable. A pattern. His neighbours have accused / confronted him regarding reckless driving / speeding at least thrice, this is relevant to his first arrest of a driving offence. The tour bus raids in two countries turn up marijuana (relevant to Bieber's first arrest too) but mainly condemn his friends / entourage. Lil Za arrested in Bieber's home for drug possession also reflects on Bieber's friends / entourage. Meanwhile, Bieber's friend Khalil was arrested with Bieber in his first arrest. Another pattern. This info needs to be made apparent to the public, they can draw their own conclusions from there. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I find walls of text to be off-putting, and a sign that the desire is to show how bad a person is. See User:Collect/BLP for examples of what a prior editor tried to do with BLPs, and which I fear may be the case here. That editor finally got removed as a sock master, by the way, but wrought havoc for years. Collect (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

<really, really slanted eyes> pretty toxic insinuation, eh? That's really a low blow. Also, there are simply walls of text because there is lots to argue and substantiate. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

More than 60% of this discussion is from one editor. 40% is from 5 editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Starship.paint can you trim back the rants a bit...this is the type of thing that makes people not want to comment or just ignore your comments all together - we want every one to have their views hear and read..even yours!! - Moxy (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest; probably 80% if not more of the content of the grey boxes was contributed by yours truly. Naturally I will be the most voracious in defending it. So instead of rebutting 60% of the arguments here, let's broadly describe it as off-putting and then ignore it. Collect, you've already had two replies in this threaded discussion and both times you'd rather attack me than attack my arguments. Broadly dismissing my arguments seems to be a speciality of yours. How funny that Moxy too will reply - I know my content has had substantial opposition to it, but only two editors have used pseudo-personal attacks against me. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This went way over your head,,,,,people are trying to explain that long walls of text and replying to everyone personally in depth does not help your case. Why because people will simply skip over your stuff if they think your just ranting. As you can see below your wall of text has already confused people because your talking about stuff and making associations that no one else is. Moxy (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• An encyclopedia is neither a police blotter nor a remote outpost of the TMZ empire. I loathe this joker as much as the next guy, but people who think "Oxygen Mask-gate" is legitimate BLP content need a bit of quiet self-reflection in a corner. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And being an encyclopedia we must present information in a well-rounded and neutral point of view manner. Mr Bieber's legal troubles are not an obscure subject, they are well-known, notable, and highly verifiable. Unfortunately, on Misplaced Pages, they are not even mentioned. I am not looking to fight WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS, but some stuff is simply not going away. Mr Bieber is a celebrity – an actor and a singer-songwriter; third-most powerful celebrity in the world in 2012 according to Forbes. His legal troubles and public opinion is an important aspect of his personal life that needs to be described. We don't have to dig our every little issue, but we can't simply ignore his legal issues either. I think a section presenting that information is appropriate. We don't need to dive into anything too specific and some things should only have a passing mention. I don't think that's too unreasonable. - CyberXRef 06:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think we should further clarify this RfC as to the exact incidents which should remain in the BLP. Otherwise the comments above will not/cannot be interpreted clearly. We should itemise the questions according to each incident. Something like "Does the reaction of the neighbours stay or go?", "Does the maskgate remain or not?" "Is Lil Za to be included"? Otherwise even if we reach some sort of consensus, it will not be clear enough. Δρ.Κ.  19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree now that the wall of text above is making links to behaviour and association of people. The original point was to talk about the above in quotes that keeps being reverted back and forth.,,but your right if we are going down the path of what may look like synthesis to many we need to talk about how and what associations are correct. -- Moxy (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No objection to what Dr.K. proposed. Also, let's include Mask-gate in it too. I'll see if I can write and reference it up in the next 24 hours. But, if we do carry out Dr.K's proposal, all previous editors who have commented should be asked to re-comment again. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

TO be clear you think much more should be added about this right...best you make a list - here because we are not going to do this all the time ...he makes the news everyday (even today). Best you make up a list of all the things you think we want to read about and add it below...no guess work on associations or made up tittles pls -- Moxy (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There's only one thing I want to add. Everything before 2014 is covered already. It was reported that during a private flight two days after his assault charge, Bieber, his father and entourage filled the plane with so much marijuana smoke that that the pilots had to don oxygen masks.

starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This suddenly matters to me. Copied the paragraph, suggested striking and added in italics.

Bieber has had several run-ins with the law around the world before his first arrest in 2014. In 2013, Bieber was charged in Brazil with vandalism; in the same year, Bieber's and his 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. Police in Detroit and (city name) each raided Bieber's tour buses were raided twice in 2013 in Detroit and Sweden while Bieber was not present;. They found raids turned up unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in the former incident (city name) and marijuana in the latter(other city). Less than two weeks (number of days) before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's his friend Lil Za for possessing drugs believed to be cocaine possession.