Talk:Chris Brown/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Punishment

Several articles (including the NYT) mention specifically that the judge made sure that he will be doing hard labor (8 hours a day picking up trash on the freeways for example) and not just community service. Small change but still an error technically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.193 (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Convicted Felon

As he has plead guilty to a felony and been convicted of a felony there should be more information about his sentence of community service and probation, along with the fact that as a convicted felon he has lost a lot of rights. Felons can not vote nor own weapons among other liberties. Also it was revealed by probation officers that there were 2 other domestic violence disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.119.61 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FA

This article is FA at the Romanian Wikipedia. Crokis (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Arrest involving Chris Brown and Rihanna

the LA Times has identified the woman that was abused by Chris Brown as Rihanna. This is a reliable source under WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). I am therefore identifying the victim. Magemirlen (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it reads alledged assault. There was a similar discussion Talk:Rihanna#2009 Grammy's. DiverseMentality 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's alleged until he's been convicted. I never contended that he was in fact guilty of the assault, just that an incident did occur. I worded the entry in a way to reflect that Rihanna was indeed involved, not necessarily that he is in fact guilty of assaulting her. So the use of the term "alleged" is a moot point. Magemirlen (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that given the fact the Los Angeles Times states that police have named Rihanna as the alleged victim, it is appropriate to list her in the article as such.

92708S (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"while under investigation for domestic violence charges, following an argument with singer Rihanna in Hancock Park, Los Angeles, California. Official reports did not name the female in the incident but stated that she had “suffered visible injuries.”"

This should be changed to something like "while official reports did not name the victim, it was reported by ******************* that Brown was arguing with girlfriend Rihanna prior to the assault" or something similar to that. As it stands right now it sounds like it was fact that he was in an argument with Rihanna at the time but not that it was a fact that she was the one that got injured. If you are going to accept a report that he was arguing with Rihanna then you should also accept the report that she was the victim of the assault. I could be wrong (since I have not read much about this) but I doubt the "official sources" like the police acknowledged that he was arguing with Rihanna at the time but then refused to say that she was the victim.--T*85 (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This should now be changed to reflect that Rihanna was the alleged victim of the assault. The LA Times, CNN, and MSNBC have all identified her as the victim. Even though they use unnamed sources, this does not matter. Wikipedia users do not second guess the ability of major news organizations that meet WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOURCES to use unnamed sources. News organizations have been using anonymous sources or unnamed sources for years. This is an accepted practice. Frankly,CNN, MSNBC, and the LA Times have all reported this. They have all verified this information. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability . These news organizations are reliable sources, and we can check the articles. Done deal. Magemirlen (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I agree that Rihanna has been amply demonstrated as the victim of the assault, at least by Wikipedia's standards of verification. Secondly, however, I do think we need to remove the laundry list of examples of how Brown's career is in freefall. While emphasizing that he has been pulled from numerous ads in the wake of the beating is definitely relevant, citing each independent incident is an unnecessary level of detail for an encyclopedia article, with the possible exception of the awards show(s?). While I see nothing inherently wrong with such detail, including it on every Wikipedia page would bog down the important points, which in my opinion is what an encyclopedia truly aims to capture. Thoughts? - Drlight11 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting immediate removal of arrest from the article for BLP concerns

Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Basic human dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style outlines guidelines to respect a person's identity.

• Per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:BLP, and especially WP:RECENTISM, the information should not have its own section. This incident, however horrific, is not by any means, the sum total of Chris Brown's biography. Until the investigation is over, this information should not be present in the article. As an encyclopedia, we are not responsible for keeping the general public "up to date". Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, if one would like one's privacy to be respected, then one would be well-advised to avoid A) becoming a celebrity; B) getting a celebrity girlfriend; and C) biting one's celebrity girlfriend. While I agree that the spirit of BLP indicates de-emphasizing the incident in Rihanna's article, at least for now, Brown appears to be a shining example of how basic human dignitity can be overruled by basic human stupidity. While the "basic human dignity" subsection of BLP may be especially relevant to Rihanna, the WP:WELLKNOWN subsection seems more germane to Brown: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Domestic violence is a serious issue. Better that this stunt heighten public awareness of it than be tucked away for the sake of one celebrity's privacy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not defending Brown's actions (I'm quite the feminist, esp concerning domestic violence), nonetheless, the most reliable sources on earth (at this point in time) can offer little more than speculation. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM are the biggest criticism here as this case (for both Brown and Rihanna), as of yet, has no encyclopedic value being less than a week old. Also, being a celebrity or public figure should never cost any individual their right to privacy. On a very general level, I find the absence of journalistic integrity very disturbing in modern society. Rihanna, for example, was said to have used a decoy simple to get out of the hospital so she would not be bombarded by photographers. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Lastly, "Better that this stunt heighten public awareness of it than be tucked away for the sake of one celebrity's privacy" is a prime example of What Wikipedia is Not.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded soapboxish, but rules need to be applied with discretion, and I can't in good conscience apply the same standards of "basic human dignity" to both perpetrator and victim, especially when the same policy covering human dignity also has a clause (WP:WELLKNOWN) allowing us to be more blunt about, for example, human stupidity. I do, however, agree with your concerns about recentism and journalistic integrity, and don't think that the incident should be overstated. But I also think that BLP itself can be overstated, and that, especially in a non-paper encyclopedia that can be revised as events progress, eliminating the information entirely based on BLP would be to overemphasize his "dignity." Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your point of view, and I'd like to reiterate, I'm not singling out Brown, specifically, I'm a watch dog when it comes to BLPs in general. However, if we are specifically showing discretion this particular case, then I believe because domestic violence is a very serious matter, I believe the information should be removed from the article until he is officially charged with something. The worlds greatest news sources, including CNN, can still only offer speculation at this point, as the investigation is ongoing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It belongs, but keep it to the facts. You shouldn't have to devote more than a few sentences to it. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is more relevant and complies with WP:WELLKNOWN than WP:Basic Human Dignity under WP:BLP. Chris Brown is not the victim. Magemirlen (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the section was before, but currently it sticks to reliable sources and is presented as neutrally as possible. I would agree that even with reliable sources, alleged crimes would be inappropriate for inclusion if they weren't notable, but given the huge fallout just the allegations have had on his career, I think it deserves a short section. This isn't a short article on someone only known for one or two things, so it's not unfair to have a short, 2-3 sentence section on the arrest. -kotra (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the section is way too long, needs a serious trim folks. — R² 01:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Charity

Information about a charitable contribution that is planned to be made by Chris Brown has been inserted a couple of times. There is no reference that says it is. We shouldn't be adding planned actions to the article. It should only include what has happened. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What the?

I know the incident is too notable to ignore, and in no way am I suggesting that we do that, but the section describing it is way too detail-oriented. To go so far as to include what he allegedly said to Rihanna during the incident and where he allegedly hit her makes us look like TMZ, which we are not. If no one objects, I'm going to remove some of that stuff. And how come the talk page is protected too? Is the vandalism really that bad? Even Barack Obama's talk page isn't protected, and it undergoes reverts almost by the minute, because of vandals, spammers and soapboxers who insist on inserting their POV edits.--Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This article does get a heavy amount of vandalism. Different amounts of vandals attack different articles at different times. Obama's was a heavy target during the election, far more than this article, but vandals typically attack articles that have a high amount of press. As for the section, I agree it can and should be trimmed down, as it takes up way to much information in the relevant section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the irrelevant info, along with some unneeded references so as not to clutter up the page. While I was editing, someone created an "Arrest" section, to which I then reverted, because there seems to be consensus not to give the incident some undue weight. However, the case has yet to be resolved, so it's pretty clear that more info will be added, and that will further extend the section it is currently occupying. So I think it might be better to move the incident to its own section, purely for ease of editing. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This incident deserves both greater mention and a higher profile in this article. If events so warrant in the future then it could be demoted but the assault currently overshadows nearly everything that Chris Brown has accomplished. One man's "undue weight" is another man's "pertinent and relevant." Also, I'm not certain that the use of the term "irrelevant" is appropriate. Drew30319 (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not deserve greater mention or higher profile per WP:RECENTISM. It should remain as is, unless the end result of the trial proves to require a great deal more information, which I honestly doubt it will. Even if he is incarcerated, there is only so much all the news sources can actually report without consistently repeating each other as we've seen so far. Controversies like Michael Jackson's and Janet Jackson's have their own independent articles, but not their own sections within the main biography...and those gathered way more press than this incident ever will. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; and in any event the use of the sub-heading adds readability - the content wasn't elevated. Drew30319 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it adds readability. The current heading reads "Acting debut, Exclusive, and criminal charges". That covers all aspects of this incident. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this case (the assault on Rihanna) is what makes this guy relevant at all. I had never heard of him before. I suspect we won't hear much from him in the future either, as he is now going to prison. So the assault should be the main focus of the article. -- 12:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.196.159 (talk)

Just because YOU had never heard of him, doesn't mean he wasn't relevant. He had two platinum albums, won numerous awards, two number one hits (and multiple Top 10). This is NOT what makes him relevant. The assault is just a minor thing in his career that he will more than likely move on from (without prison). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.196.242 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this comment was added by the Brown guy himself. I don't think abuse of women is a "minor thing", and I can't imagine that anyone would be interested in promoting the career of such a person. So I think the abuse should be the main focus of the article, as he's primarily known (to a larger audience) for his abuse of Rihanna. 85.164.196.159 (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on the whole "him being primarily known to the general public as a woman beater rather than a singer" thing, however the article is about Chris Brown, not Chris Brown beating Rihanna. However, I feel that depending on the outcome of all of this and depending on more information being added to the article regarding this situation within the weeks to come, as well as the end result (possible jail time, mainly), this will indeed need to have its own section in the article! Percxyz (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• As a feminist I don't view battery and assault as a minor issue, and to be blunt I've never enjoyed Chris Brown's music (and I find it odd to say the least his talents have been frequently compared to Michael Jackson and Usher) however, Editors need to understand wikipeida is not a soapbox to protest or promote any type of angenda, especially concerning living people. This is a bigraphical article about an individual's entire life, not a opinion piece or cover story about the first few months of 2009. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

By "minor," I mean: his entire career > an single altercation with a girlfriend.

It doesn't deserve to be the main focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.202.120 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

if I'm honest His Entire Career < The problem of Spousal(sic) Abuse. I'm in favour of expanding it (not by a lot) into it's own subheading to add a measure of significance. I'm sure I and many others came to this Wiki to check for it explicitly. James. 13.20.137.12 (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

New single by Brown and Rihanna

According to this Brown and Rihanna have recorded a single which speaks of the assault, which looks legitimate since the source is the song's producer, but I think commenting on it in either article should wait until the single is released to radio or at least until more music related sources (Billboard/Rolling Stone etc) comment on it. Musicians seems to be notorious for promising "new music" and then having the material delayed for a variety of reasons, or it simply never surfaces. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this, not true. It was a demo of a track called "Bad Girl" made last year. The Pussycat Dolls ended up recording the song instead which was supposed to be on the soundtrack for Confessions of a Shopaholic. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do magazines ever bother checking their facts anymore? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

Well since the price for not getting facts straight isn't as high for them as it is for Wikipedia, I guess not. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 06:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

NO DERES NO SONG PEOPLE NO SONGGGGGGG!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.73.85 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New PSA inspired by Chris Brown and Rihanna incident

I don't know if this is worthy of mention or not, but there's a PSA inspired by this incident where they re-enact everything that allegedly went down that night. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 19:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any third party sources connecting the PSA to Brown? Its notable to Brown if an outside source specifically ties him to the creation/inspiration of the PSA. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminology...

"Originally interested in becoming a rapper, he chose to become a vocalist when his mother noticed his singing voice." A rapper is a type of vocalist, as is a singer. He chose to become a singer. --152.3.141.108 (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. — Σxplicit 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown on Ciara's "Fantasy Ride"

It has been confirmed that chris brown will be on ciara's upcoming album "Fantasy Ride". The song is intitled "Turntables" and it has not been scripted on his page yet. Tracklisting for fantasy ride was confirmed by amazon and other good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.103.101 (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We have Chris Brown discography for that, which has already been added. — Σxplicit 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal life?

Shouldn't there be a "Personal life" section? CollisionCourse (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal life sections are not required. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Every other artist has a personal life section. CollisionCourse (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Personal life sections in other articles is not relevant here. — Σxplicit 02:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not every biography has a personal life section: Rihanna, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Alicia Keys, John Frusciante, Aaliyah. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Their personal information is in different parts of their articles. All I'm saying is it would be better if we create a personal life section for this information. CollisionCourse (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the Early life section should be changed to Personal life, as the second half of the section discusses his life from age 13 to 2005, which really isn't his early life considering the boy is only 19. Although I guess the fact that he's only 19 means he's still technically IN his early life, lol. The thing is, there's not a lot about his personal life that's known to the public anyway. The main thing we know about him, besides being a singer, is that he was traumatized as a young child due to his mother's physical abusive relationship with her boyfriend. There's not really enough information regarding his personal life to contribute to a separate Personal life section, at least none that I know of.. Percxyz (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We can add that he was traumatized as a child, that he is/was dating Rihanna, and the domestic abuse thing. CollisionCourse (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Who he is/was dating and the domestic abuse thing are already in the article, so all you would need to do is add the traumatized portion (obviously reliably source) at an appropiate place in the existing framework of the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That information is already there as well. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that we should take all of that information and put it into a personal life section. CollisionCourse (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All the information concerning his personal life is already adequately included in the article. There's no purpose in creating a separate section for this information. — Σxplicit 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Move

This has nothing to do with his criminal actions and should not be right after his felony charges.

On May 25th he appeared in Orlando, FL at Game 3 of the NBA's Eastern Conference Finals, alongside Usher and Chris Tucker. [49] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.219.229 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence altogether. It was irrelevant and unencyclopedic. — Σxplicit 04:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I like how this page downplays his domestic abuse--good call gang! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.243.166 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. The main [but minor] issue I have here in particular is the end of the Criminal Charges section because it reads as though the whole situation is over, and that he's back in the studio recording an album and everything is back to normal. Clearly not the case. I think it's a tad bit premature to mention an upcoming album, based on the fact that the case isn't over yet and the possibility of him doing jail time has certainly not gone away. However with that said, it is sourced and it's not like it doesn't "not" belong in the article. I just think the boy is in way over his head thinking he's gonna release anything, anytime soon. We'll just have to wait and see what the next few weeks holds in store for now. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The domestic violence case is not being downplayed. It is being given proportional weight in relation to the amount of reliable evidence (as in avoiding any kind of speculation or rumor) and with proportion the rest of the information in his biography. This is an encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX to use as a venue to discuss domestic violence. As the case continues, more information on it will obviously be added. Until then, we are not going to turn his entire biography into a summary of the last year of his life. If there are reliable sources on how Chris Brown has influenced awareness of domestic violence, that can easily be added as well, so long as it isn't simply a tabloid blog on rumors surrounding his relationship with Rihanna. And too be clear, I do not like Chris Brown, or his music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown has a video out on youtube advertising his New album Graffiti and also states that he is not a monster and that all his haters can hate, and that he loves his fans that still support him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakcheri (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Percxyz. His abuse (and former relationship with Rihanna), which he primarily is known for (at least internationally), is being downplayed. His music seems to be rather mediocre and less noteworthy anyway. The article should have a stronger focus on the abuse case. UweBayern (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Percxyz' comments, I've moved the criminal case to its own section and made a separate section for his album under "Career". The abuse doesn't belong under "Career" anyway. UweBayern (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, he is not primarily known, domestically or internationally for the domestic violence case, he's been making music and acting (however mediocre) for quite a few years before this incident occurred. Second, having a felony is not an "occupation" and is not appropriate for the infobox. adding such information to the lead has to be given apporpriate weight. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire lead section didn't even mention the case that made this guy known to a world audience. Compare Lewis Libby, a guy who was much more important before his conviction, who is described as "a convicted felon" and where large parts of the introduction is about the criminal case (and he wasn't even violent). UweBayern (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Other_shit_exists#What_about_article_x.3F: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist. The domestic Violence conviction is a WP:RECENTISM development and should be applied appropriately as such in a lead. The third paragraph would probably be the best place to mention it, not the first sentence. That is while guidelines such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOAPBOX exist, particularly for Biographies of living people. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Official Policy on Criticism and Praise of an article subject

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The Attack Article

Further information: Wikipedia:Attack page

Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic. Articles about a particular person or topic should not primarily consist of criticisms of that person or topic. For example:

John Doe works as a journalist. He has given over 30 years of long and faithful service to his newspaper. However, one day, he made the terrible mistake of nearly reporting an unchecked fact that came within a whisker of ruining an innocent person's life. Because he did this, he is an evil person. Here is some more information about this incident… (and so on, and so forth).

Clearly overstating, or overemphasizing the felony conviction against Brown is a direct way of turning his encyclopedic entry into an Attack Page. This applies to EVERY biographical entry on wikipedia. We are not here as editors to make "examples" of individuals mistakes as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and criminal conviction

There are concerns the coverage of Brown's criminal conviction are not being given proper weight, which gives the article a bias POV. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment: As I stated previously. Clearly overstating, or overemphasizing the felony conviction against Brown is a direct way of turning his encyclopedic entry into an Attack Page. This applies to EVERY biographical entry on wikipedia. We are not here as editors to make "examples" of individuals mistakes as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If coverage of the conviction requires greater elaboration, that is fine, but not solely on the basis that editors believe he is solely WP:NOTABLE for the assault, which is a bias observation in and of itself. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fine: The amount of coverage is OK, it's more than enough, one bulky paragraph in fact. He is primarily a singer, so this issue should not be given undue weight. — Please comment R² 22:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Neutrality undisputed: Looking at the article now and reading the criminal charges section - now that the June 22 sentencing has passed, and now knowing the legal outcome of the whole situation; along with the fact that the case is pretty much over and it's now a matter of Brown serving his sentence...I've come to my own conclusion that the section really doesn't need to be expanded any further than this. I am a bit torn between whether it should remain where it is now, or have its own section - but not enough to actually dispute that. For me it's not so much where it's positioned in his article, but how it reads and its overall view point, and right now I'm fine with it. I don't dispute neutrality. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment: Agree with the above: current article seems neutral. Any more or less coverage on the criminal charges (other than adding information about the sentencing and any influence it had on his career, when that happens) would be less neutral. Keep as-is (except maybe switch the two paragraphs in that section so they are more chronological). -kotra (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the two paragraphs within the criminal conviction/Graffiti section should be switched for chronological reasons. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment: I have no problem with any of the diffs I've checked from Bookkeeperoftheoccult. In fact, I would have been inclined to make the same reverts myself, even if this were not a BLP, because an encyclopedia article is not the place for editors to WP:MORALIZE, to WP:RANT, or to indicate that they might like to do so via crafty tone or WP:STRUCTURE. Just one suggestion: The name of the "2009–present: Criminal conviction and Graffiti" section should be changed. "Criminal conviction" should become something like "Criminal case" or "Domestic violence case". "Criminal conviction" is too specific for a section that summarizes the entire episode. More importantly, it is not even correct. He was not convicted; he pleaded guilty. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Echoing the above comments, the way the article is structured is the more precise way of covering the individual at hand. He is prominently known as a recording artist and the domestic violence case should not be given undue weight. On a side note, did anyone else find it strange to list felon as an occupation? — Σxplicit 03:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the precise reason I reverted User:UweBayern's edits as vandalism. An established editor should know better than to use the infobox inappropriately. This is also why I believe the user is acting under WP:SOAPBOX and WP:MORALIZE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The mentioning of the criminal case in the lead..

I think it needs just a tad bit more depth. Not much, but enough so that the reader is at least shown 'why' he was convicted of a felony charge, and the amount of time he's serving on probation and community service. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 23:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed Category:Criminals. Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories: Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. 1) the felony is not relevant to Brown's WP:NOTABILITY and as user Cosmic Latte pointed out above, he was not convicted but plead guilty as part of a plea deal and was not sentenced to prison. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Convicted Felon

As he has plead guilty to a felony, it should be stated that he is a convicted felon. There is no dispute to this as he confessed to the felony therefore it should be placed before his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.219.229 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I added it. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So it's undue weight even if Brown is on 5 years' probation? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A conviction means he stood trial. A Plea bargain, which is what Brown agreed too, bypasses both trail and conviction and is given immediate sentence. And incase you hadn't noticed, this is covered in the last sentence of the introduction. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

extended info: For the defendants, plea bargaining provides the opportunity for a lighter sentence on a less severe charge. If represented by private counsel, defendants save the cost for trial and have fewer or less serious offenses listed on their criminal records. source here there's also an interesting paper about plea bargaining hereThe Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the first sentence of the Findlaw article: "...more than 90 percent of criminal convictions come from negotiated pleas...". A negotiated plea results in being convicted of the crime plead to. If Brown plead to a felony, he's a convicted felon. You may have a point about undue weight (which I'm not going to get into), but the description is accurate.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

True enough. Nonetheless, we've reached an agreement on the placement/wording of the conviction in the introduction. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am an attorney licensed to practice in California, make no mistake a guilty plea is a conviction. If you look up his criminal record via Lexis Nexis or Westlaw or the court websites it will say CONVICTED. A conviction does NOT need to be from a trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.119.61 (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the neutrality dispute over?

It seems that this dispute is now over. Is everyone okay with removing the neutrality dispute tag from the article now? Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to wait until the RfC automatically closed, but I've removed the POV tag as there has been no further discussion. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown has apologized.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4SD6oBvbKYKnowledgeKami (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is already covered in the "Graffiti and domestic violence case" section. — Σxplicit 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

JK wedding entrance video, and Chris Brown "forever"back in charts...

I think forever hitting the charts due to the wedding entrance should be added to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shradhau (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Change "a Usher" to "an Usher"

{{editsemiprotected}} please change "a Usher" to "an Usher" under "1989–2004: Early life and career beginnings"

 Done. — Σxplicit 02:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Two unreported domestic violence incidents prior to February

I recently ran into an article from the Los Angeles Times, which reports Brown had two unreported domestic violence incident with Rihanna before the incident in February (they didn't end up anywhere near like the February incident, though). Does anyone feel it's appropriate to note this in the article? — Σxplicit 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No reason to exclude. It can be added to the section that deals with the details of the outcome of the plea. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

chris brown is now alledgedly dating a girl by the name of Lashes Sky'Courtore of Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernadria (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition to dvc.

On this video, it also says Chris Brown isn't allowed to contact Rihanna either. Should this be added? And look at the video before you say its not notable --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)