Talk:Britney Spears

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Appear to be errors in the section below: The court statement got widespread media coverage and generated over 1 million shares on twitter, over 500.000 messages using the tag #FreeBritney and more than 150.000 message with a new relevant relevant to the court date, #BritneySpeaks.[295][296] 80.2.49.151 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Split conservatorship details into new article

With the ongoing news coverage, I suggest splitting the sections #2008–2010: Conservatorship and Circus and #2019–present: Conservatorship dispute, #FreeBritney, and abuse allegations into its own article, titled Conservatorship of Britney Spears. There is another article of the name Conservatorship of Wendland, however it's focus is about a court ruling. The Free Britney Movement article might be of use. SWinxy (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I was about to consider doing it myself had I not seen the template. At least two Senators who normally wouldn’t agree on anything have engaged on this subject because it will now domino effect almost all conservatorships. Trillfendi (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree.--Doric Loon (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed as well, and think the Free Britney Movement article could be merged into and have its own section under the Conservatorship article. Akcvtt (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless it expands upon what is already in the article, I'm not sure. It fits pretty comfortably into the article. SecretName101 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have been working on a draft for a separate article concerning the conservatorship for a while now. Here's the link to it: Draft:Conservatorship dispute of Britney Spears. Indecisjon (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft is very good. I suggest that you move it into mainspace or submit for review. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support: These sections are only going to grow. The conservatorship has taken on a life of its own and comfortably meets WP:GNG. I would move Free Britney movement to the proposed new article. Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Free Britney movement already chronicles the conservatorship as a whole outside of the movement. If you move the article to Conservatorship of Britney Spears and give the article a new lead section, it would work the same way. I think a lot of what's in this article (and Indecisjon's draft) fail WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE, and WP:NOTNEWS (e.g., Us Weekly and TMZ are cited multiple times in both). While the rising interest in the conservatorship enhances its notability, not every development warrants inclusion (e.g., her court appearance generating "over 1 million shares on Twitter"). I don't think we're going to look back ten years from now and wonder how many tweets her testimony sparked. KyleJoan^talk 01:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Yes, very good idea. I was surprised to see that there was no separate article on this issue, as it has resulted in much serious debate. The "Free Britney Movement" article is insufficient. Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved my draft into the mainspace — the article is now Conservatorship dispute of Britney Spears. Indecisjon (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for generating a seperate article, but the fact that it doeasn't warrant a major section in her article and a strong place in the lead smacks of scrubbing by the conservatorship itself. This is a huge part of her life, and this is her page. Please adapt your new page to the lead and a section. Thanks. Billyshiverstick (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Attended Bela Karolyi's gymnastics camp

In her early life section we do mention briefly that she took up gymnastics in her youth. However, one, perhaps, noteworthy aspect of that we do not include is that she attended the training camp of of Bela Karolyi in her youth gymnastics. She had mentioned this herself in at least one talk show appearance in the past. I found a 1999 Newsweek article which reports that she attended it. https://www.newsweek.com/pops-sexy-teen-angel-169246 SecretName101 (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This is good, just add it in yourself. Billyshiverstick (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

Change "his fiancée" to "her fiancée". The incorrect pronoun is used.

Trawick gained legal control of Spears as his fiancée and became a co-conservator, alongside her father, in April 2012.[165] Percula D (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Years active

Years active should show 1992-present. There is no question she started her career in 1992 and it has continued to this day, despite the conservatorship AlienChex (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know why anyone decided to hide it. There is no proof beyond hearsay that she "retired". Trillfendi (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

She has technically stopped working on her career offficially since January 4, 2019. Larry Rudolph made a public statement about this in 2019. But the debate is whether she is technically active, so 1992-present, as a result of her brand continuing without her or whether she is on indefinite hiatus (1992-2019). For example, One Direction did not retire, they went on indefinite hiatius, like Spears did in 2019. Rudolph reiterated his comments on his public statement retiring as her manager in July 2021, saying it had been 2 1/2 years since he spoke to Spears, who said she wanted to go on indefinite hiatus, which she has been on since Jan 2019. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to do the math and figure out if she is still active or not. We go with published sources, and nobody in the media is describing her as "retired". There's only conjecture stirred up by statements made by Larry Rudolph. The media aren't buying what he's selling. That woman is not dead yet. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Leave it active until she sorts out the conservatorship and gets control of her life back. She still feels active, she's just stuck in a hard place. Billyshiverstick (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

TMZ Articles

Guys, I heard that the media is lying to the public about Jamie’s so-called “decision to step down.” Apparently, he didn’t actually step down. Apparently, he petitioned for the court deny any possible suspension. Joyasaxena21 (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Songwriter

No. I'm hoping a situation like that on Beyoncé's article (a very lengthy, months-long, heated debate) will be avoided. Britney Spears was described as a songwriter in the lead and infobox of this article for years, and there is no justification to remove that profession from both the lede and the infobox without any discussion nor consensus. 1. Britney Spears has over 70 songwriting credits[1] including one sole songwriting credit for the song 'Someday, I Will Understand' and Billboard-charting hits such as 'Everytime', 'Me Against the Music', 'Make Me...' and 'Work Bitch'. 2. Britney Spears has written songs for herself and other artists such as Selena Gomez and BoA. 3. Britney Spears was defined as a songwriter by major publications such as Rolling Stone[2], MTV[3], Digital Spy[4] and Billboard[5] 4. Britney's songwriting contribution may not be as extensive as some of her contemporaries, but what I've just listed shows sufficient notability for inclusion of "songwriter" in both the lede and infobox. If Spears had only co-written several songs like Céline Dion, it would be different, but that's not certainly not the case here.

OnMyRadar, TruthGuardians, TheWikiholic, castorbailey Bgkc4444, Binksternet, what do y'all think? Israell (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof to prove she isn’t a song writer is up to the editor who believes there’s not enough supporting evidence to suggest that it was added against a Wikipedia rule, to explain that rule, and convince other editors that that rule is being broken. To my knowledge, it has been there for a long time. For a long time the lead of the article remain stable, with no disruptive editing to remove the content. Though I may not think of Britney Spears as a songwriter, that doesn’t mean she is not one. That also does not mean millions of others don’t think of her as one. Until it is proven that it doesn’t belong, I’ll say WP:JustDropIt and keep the content that has stabilized the lead for a long time. TruthGuardians (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)