Talk:Fergie (singer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fergie (singer) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is not a forum for general discussion of Fergie, speculation about future single choices, rumors about her personal life, or anything not related to improving the article. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Underneath the picture, where it says Fergie is pictured with fellow Black Eyed Peas Member apl.de.ap, that isn't him! That's Taboo. (edit)

Archives

/Archive 01

Contents 1 Against Rules 2 LGBT? 3 Surgery 4 Infobox name 5 urination? 6 Album Has Been Certerficated DOUBLE Platinum 7 Sexual Career??? 8 Guest Contributions 9 Product placement brouhaha 10 Apperances 11 Serious Advice 12 feat. Koda Kumi? 13 Videography 14 Semi-Protection 15 Tables 16 Discography 17 Is there really a need for all the pictures? 18 Lucy 19 Heart Performance 20 What is the big deal with "Dance-Pop"?

[edit] Against Rules

Bolding "1" on the chart table is against wikipedia rules. User: luxurious.gaurav

Thanks for changing it. Acalamari 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT?

"I have had lesbian experiences..." doesn't really qualify her as a lesbian or bisexual. I'm removing the cat until/unless she identifies as bisexual - per WP:BLP. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If she had them, it proves she´s also into women. If she was straight, she certainly would ever never done it.85.240.16.207 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surgery

Enough about pissing herself, why's there no mention of the extensive plastic surgery to her face, and people arguing and edit-warring over that? -- AvatarMN 10:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been no edit wars over that section for a while. As for the extensive plastic surgery, that sort of information needs reliable sources in accordance with WP:BLP. Acalamari 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Way to take a comment teasing everyone about the urination edit storm like I was actually asking something serious. I was just joking that there's something else people could be fighting over. -- AvatarMN 05:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox name

The infobox is for the musical artist, so I think the Name field should be Fergie, not Stacy Ferguson. Her birth name is already in the Birth_name field too. Comments? --JYi 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after looking more closely, I think it should be as well. The "birth name" already says Stacy Ferguson. I have rolledback my previous edit. Acalamari 21:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] urination?

Have some class, wikipedians.

Great point...that whole paragraph was unnecessary...oops...where did it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebadscientist (talk • contribs) 04:13, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

That edit you made to remove it was vandalism. I have restored the section. There was an underlying message above the "urination" part saying to not remove it. Please don't remove that text about the incident again. Not liking something is not a reason to remove it. Acalamari 16:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is funny, but why is this in the article? What possible relevance does an accidental bodily function have pertaining to information on a person whose career is geared toward music and movies? If she had done it purposefully I can see why it would be there, because there would be motive and some sort of story behind it. And thus there would be meaning, a reason, to include it in the article. This text is just a silly joke and has no place on wikipedia for the same reason why things like President George H.W. Bush fainting and vomiting on the Japanese Prime Minister back in the early nineties isn't here either; it has no more historical relevance than sneezing. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with her musical career, the the section in which it resides, other than the fact that it happened while she was performing. No mention is made to whether this is a regular occurrence for her during performances or if she regularly has some sort of bodily mishap while in public.

I must say that I am disappointed with the way the information has been handled. Onebadscientist removed the paragraph even when the note "Consensus agreed to leave this section in. Please discuss any changes you want to make to this section instead of directly removing it." was included in a note. This action by Onebadscientist was considered vandalism by Acalamari. Looking at the archived discussion, the reason for keeping the reference to the "urination incident" looms largely on shunning those who want an "encyclopedic" article being that some say it is a buzz term or an old question, satisfying a bet that user Matt D (not to be confused with Matt Crypto) had with his girlfriend, claims that widely known rumors are reason to include information in a wikipedia article, and the reinforcement of those rumors by citing the Rollingstone and askmen.com. Even with these arguments the debate continued. The archived discussion is a long argument that lacks both consensus and good reason. To tackle the reasons for inclusion, in reverse respective order, askmen.com used the incident to grab reader attention to the true point of its short body copy which was to inform the reader of Fergie's career involvement in acting. Likewise, the Rollingstone uses the incident to get a laugh (or a cringe) out of the reader and to point out the mishaps that are common for the rockstar life. These secondary sources use the incident as a vehicle for their own means to an end, which is grabbing reader attention. Are wikipedia articles aloud to use anecdotes to segue readers into the main idea? If that were even remotely the case, the current wikipedia article does not use the information in this way. But the successful argument for inclusion based on the rumor would take care of that. However, immediately this is covered by wikipedia's neutral point of view and credible source policies that require; no circular arguments and no fluff. Using search engines to gather evidence data on the frequency of a rumor is considered original research, which is not condoned by wikipedia. The sub-clause of this argument was that the lengthy discussion of a topic must mean it is article worthy, but this is nothing more than the previous mention of rumor within the scope of the wikipedia discussion page. This attitude that rumors are notable within the scope of wikipedia is shown to be even further absurd when the public expects certain information based on pride in a personal bet of knowledge. If Matt D's girlfriend had posted instead, it would not make the reasoning to NOT include the information any more relevant to the opposing viewpoint, thus defeating personal feelings about a subject as reason to include a topic (essentially original research, but in the most subjective and individual way). Finally, the common mention that encyclopedic, as a buzzword, is overused (one side of the argument pushing it as an "old question" suggests further lack of consensus among the talk discussion) to promote an argument should be an argument for both sides of whether to include the incident or not; if wikipedia is not encyclopedic (or in the state of becoming so), then wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. This is also covered by Acalamari's pointing out that just because you don't want something in an article does not give grounds to remove it; it is such that just because you want something in an article does not mean it should be added. Discussions like this one are important not necessarily because they weed out some useless knowledge (all of wikipedia, be it useless or not), but because discussions like these are important because they set common decisions that can be applied throughout wikipedia.

And so it is the decision of myself that due to the lack of consensus, to the invalid use of neutral point of view, to the circular arguments for inclusion, to the use of original research, and to the lack of a credible source, that this information regarding Fergie's accidental urination while performing her music be removed from the article until such time that all of the previous discretions have come to be resolved. --Trakon 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read the archived discussion on this, specifically Urination incident III which was the final discussion. It was the conclusion of that disscussion that the sources were valid and that the information was sufficiently notable for it to be kept in. This included the satisfaction of many people who had previously questioned the information. I fail to see how the arguements are circular or how the research was original. This story wasn't unearthed by a single editor who is now attempting to have it added. Please see the previous discussion. I'm going to go ahead and re-add this info since the issue has actually been long resolved and there was a warning not to remove it. If we get into a new disscussion and come to a new consensus to remove it then fine.--Matt D 22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt D, it is fine that you have your own opinions, as we all have. But the difference is that I have argued directly on many points that clearly raise some eyebrows, whether they are in fact true or false. When you come to understand that NPOV is the primary goal of wikipedia you will then realize that your two main rebuttals against all that I have pointed out do not say anything against them, but more against yourself and the other that you participated with in the archived discussion. Just because you do not understand what I have written is not cause for the inclusion of the information. Actually it is my opinion that you are less fit for editing wikipedia because of it, but that is aside. Secondly, the previous argument was based on a minority of decision makers, which included yourself, who merely had the patience to stick with their argument long enough to frustrate those who had any points to make, myself included. I think it is great that you wasted your time re-reading the archived discussion when it would have served you better to re-read what I wrote (sarcasm, don't be sensitive). But the problem with that is that even though you have reinforced your own beliefs, you have done nothing to directly eliminate the concerns that others and I have brought to the discussion. And so then it becomes a popularity contest where whichever side has the most patient and highest number of people willing to discuss, or rather preach, their own point of view. That was my biggest concern. I honestly do not care about the story, more the principal of the matter. --Trakon 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The event was well-publicized and well-covered, and is perfectly likely to be information sought by Wikipedia readers. The difference between one embarrassing incident in Bush's nearly 30 years of documented political information and a specific, well-known event in a singer's relatively short career is substantial. Likelihood is that eventually the event will lose noteworthiness over time, and eventually be deleted. But for now it remains relevant as an extremely public event with multiple well-known sources in the public career of a public figure. It's not like this is saying "she once stole a bicycle when she was 12"; she covered it in interviews with Rolling Stone and other major periodicals of record in the field. 70.18.8.149 (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

unindented That as may be, I had no idea about the incident and read the article. Coming upon the sentence, I questioned whether the information itself was encyclopedic. The time of noteworthiness for losing bladder control on stage may have already passed. —  X  S  G  06:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty I don't edit many wikipedia articles mainly due to poor typing / grammer / information / emotion and so on. I have only added some changes to the odd few where it was necessary. However I am a frequent Wikipedia user and while browsing the net on a boring monday evening I stumbled across Fergies embarassing moment and came here to find out more about it. I disagree with people arguing to keep it out of the article. It would be the same as trying to keep movie critisism out of articles just because you liked the movie. You make it painfully obvious that you are either a Fergie fan boy or just sensitive and think you can dictate what people should or shouldn't know. Isn't this supposed to be a source of reliable information? Sure it may not be the most tasteful topic to have a discussion like this over but I came here for information only to find it wasn't here because you are either a fan or too sensitive to be editing pages on this website. You have no right to choose what information other readers should have access to. On a final note if you think it's just embarassing and unfair for Fergie, well such is life as a celebrity - you end up under a microscope. Please repost the information for people like me who would like to find out from a reliable source and please stop editing / deleting information because it doesn't suit you. If the information is correct, fits under the topic and presented in a civilised, intelligent and professional manner then it deserves to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.224.247 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album Has Been Certerficated DOUBLE Platinum

On Billboard.com It states that her album is Certificated by RIAA 2X Platinum not just platinum. Please Fix That! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mali93 (talk • contribs).

Do you have the source itself? Acalamari 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Career???

Quote deleted in accordance to WP:LIVING - What does THIS mean??? where is the SOURCE? Haters? Seems like it got deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.162.3.147 (talk)

It was vandalism and utter nonsense. One user removed part of it, and I removed the rest. Acalamari 01:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guest Contributions

I think you should add "Guest Contributions" section, she was featured in many album: Diddy's Press Play, 50 first Dates Soundtrack, Daddy Yankee's El Cartel: The Big Boss, Macy Gray's Big, Shrek The Third Soundtrack, Poseidon Soundtrack. That's enough for a new section.$ą|εɱ 08:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Product placement brouhaha

Is there sufficient resolution of the 'product placement' accusations and denials to include something here? Or is more in the category of silly season storm in teacup, anyway? Alai 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apperances

What about: - *Too $hort will.i.am Snoop Dogg and Fergie - Keep Bouchin'* - *Golden Feat Fergie - Elevator Music* - *Bucky Johnson Feat Fergie - Vapours*

[edit] Serious Advice

As Wikipedia tells us to be bold, here is what i have to say. This article ain't matching the Biography standards. Too many tables are not preferred in a biography article. I would seriously suggest this article to follow Gwen Stefani article. Thank you to those who accept this advice with a positive mind and not insult. Thank You!. Luxurious.gaurav 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] feat. Koda Kumi?

I know Fergie and Koda Kumi are doing a song together, but Fergie's page has nothing about it (Koda Kumi's page says that they have an upcoming single; Fergie = nada) Artistthatneverwas 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Artistthatneverwas

[edit] Videography

I have deleted the videography section because this [so called] artist has not released any DVD's or VHS's of live concerts, music videos, etc. and the music videos have only been aired on tv stations. Nearly all artists [sic] produce music videos for their singles, and they are also mentioned. There was no need for the Videography section as it was repeating the singles section. mattytay 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

I'm a little new to Wikipedia, but is it possible to semi-protect this article? I've seen a lot of vandalism here and not only is it annoying, it seems unfair to the administrators to have to keep editing and warning the vandals. I've seen semi-protected articles (e.g., Rachel McAdams) and was just curious as to whether this article would be justified in being protected in some way. Miss Sara G (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you really think an article is in need for protection, go here. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

• What in the world happened to the award tables at the bottom of the article? Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discography

I am asking here for an agreement of whether or not to create a seperate page for her discography. I created this page a few weeks ago, but User:Acalamari deleted it per "re-creation of deleted material". So I am asking for concencus here first before creating it again. JayJ47 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I deleted it under WP:CSD#G4, and the deletion discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fergie discography. Thanks. Acalamari 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I just strongly feel that she needs a discography page. JayJ47 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created the Fergie discography page. Please do not delete it for the same reason before, as I noticed that was an old discussion. Instead please improve it.

It doesn't matter how old the deletion discussion: the page still falls under WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of deleted material. Plus, as was stated in the deletion discussion, Fergie only has one album released, and discography pages are not needed for someone who only has one album. Acalamari 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand, but Leona Lewis has also released one album, and yet she has her own discography page. She has also released fewer singles, and yet she has her own discography. That is why I believe that Fergie shoud have her own page also. Another good example would be The Pussycat Dolls discography page. They to have released one album and a few singles. JayJ47 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be a good idea to read this guide. In addition, if there are other artists that have only released one album, yet have their own discography pages, and there is consensus that artists who only have one album shouldn't have discography pages, it's a better idea to deal with those articles, or even try to change the consensus using discussion. However, since I speedy deleted the Fergie discography the last time, I will not speedy it again. Acalamari 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there really a need for all the pictures?

Is there really a need for three of essentially the same picture (albeit a slightly different pose)? The one in the info box should suffice, the rest really do need to go. Padillah (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance of discussion here? Any chance someone could address the need for three of the same picture? Or are we just going to revert each other over and over again? Padillah (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: no, I don't see the need for all 3.
  • The one in the infobox clearly needs to be kept.
  • The second image is not appropriate for that section as it does not illustrate her acting career, or her early work, and is adding nothing to the article - a picture from that era or no image would be preferable. I'd suggest removing it for now.
  • The third photo is debatable, since it is actually illustrating her current music career; however, a different image would be preferable. I had a look on flickr to see if there were any more appropriately-licensed works; [1] these are good, and are under what I understand to be a free-enough CC license. I'd suggest using one of those to replace the third image.

Bazzargh (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with what Bazzargh said. 3 pics might be questionable anyways... but these are 3 pics from the same time and place, very odd indeed. It makes me wonder "what is so important about that event" which readers shouldn't be doing in this case. The repeating of similar pics doesn't really add anything to the article, and possibly hurts its legitimacy. I think it would be safe to go ahead an remove 2 of them, doesn't look like a controversial removal. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree. No need for three. They must have been removed already? If yes, you might remove the RFC notice from the board. Windy Wanderer (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing RfC. I think three viewpoints is enough. Thanks for the help everyone. Padillah (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the current image is fine. The other two can be used in other Fergie-related articles if there's a place for them there. Acalamari 16:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy

Most websites say that she was the voice of "Lucy" in a "PEANUTS" special(s). This has to be sourced on when she voiced Lucy. 1Yes1960 49:2, 12 April 2008, (UTC)

As noted in the article, Ferguson voiced Sally Brown in two Peanuts specials. None of the cast listings for Peanuts specials produced when Ferguson was a child actress list her as playing Lucy. On a related note, this article credits Ferguson as the voice of Sally on The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show, which is incorrect[2]; it was Stacy Heather Tolkin, who also voiced Sally for What Have We Learned, Charlie Brown? and Is This Goodbye, Charlie Brown?.[3] The confusion may come from the similar first names and the fact that Ferguson's sister Dana has an acting credit as an unidentified voice for The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show.[4] I am altering the article accordingly. -- Pennyforth (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heart Performance

I consider her performance with Heart on the 2008 edition of American Idol gives back to be relevant to her music career. It shows a foray into hard rock that she really hasn't gotten into extensively, from what I've seen (save for her cover of Barracuda on the Shrek album). Discuss. 128.205.225.155 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was in support of an album with more Hard Rock music then I'd say yes. If it turns out to be in support of more Hard Rock efforts then we can call back to this "entry" into the genre. If this were a different song and showed an expansion into the Hard Rock genre, then yes. But as it stands I feel it's simply her performing a cover she already did for Idol Gives Back. Padillah (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the big deal with "Dance-Pop"?

A user has requested comment on biography for this section. This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCbio list}}. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

Why is this such a bone of contention? The list of genres is not complete nor is it exhaustive. Nor is it concrete, anyone that knows about music genres knows they are not concrete entities and asking three critics to define a genre will result in five different definitions. Can someone on either side give a concrete reason the genre should either be listed or not? Let's discuss this, not edit war over it. Padillah (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be a big deal. I could make a good argument for "Fergilicious" being a "dance pop" record, if nothing else. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)