Talk:Fergie (singer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

All That Is Wrong

This pathetic article epitomises all that is wrong with Wiki and the cultural wasteland of that country known as the United States of Bush - that people who arrogantly refer to themselves as 'americans' despite there being perhaps 40 others countries and races in the 'americas'. 'Fergie' is about as appealing as a fetid mop and about as disgusting as you can get. She symbolises all that is wrong with this world and your idiotic coverage of her here only exacerbates the matter.

No wonder people want to change and vandalise this! Just think what they'd do if they met the 'cause celebre'!

Though I agree with the whole "girls have no positive role models today" thing. Don't be too hard on fergie - I mean, PARIS HILTON is about as appealing as a fetid mop and about as disgusting as you can get and symbolises all that is wrong with this world (really just western culture - c'mon africa has alot of deeper issues). However, I don't understand what your real point is. Are you trying to say that wikipedia should delete all articles about brainless celebrities? --Matt D 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Plastic Surgery?

'major plastic surgery on her face'. This is impossible. She's not as far gone as David Gest and she's undeniably BUTT-UGLY. No nip 'n' tuck institute would ever make anyone look as ugly as that. No, friends: those are her ugly parent's genes.

Ditch this disgusting article! If you don't get it yet: the bitch's press agents are doctoring this shit article all the time! Keep them the F out!

Have you ever seen people with major facial plastic surgery? It doesn't make them look good. Many of them are a fucking mess, Fergie included. Check out Michael Jackson, Pete Burns, Joan Rivers... -- AvatarMN 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

pee pee, the urination inc

look she pissed herself. it was on the news. its as important as the britney madona kiss or janet jackson "accidentally' exposing herself and should be included. if it isnt included the only thing that i can think is going on here is that FERGIE OR HER HANDLERS, AGENT, ET CETERA ARE RE-WRITING THIS PAGE!!!! Put the urination incident in.

- - - -

---Nelly Furtado?----- I think the beef (or whatever it actually was) with Nelly Furtado should be metioned.

Why? Furtado has brains, doesn't she? That means the proponents are irretrievably unmatchable.

---

I edited out this sentence:

who are of Irish, Scottish and Native American descent. As a child actress, she appeared

Where is the verifiable source for this information? IMDB doesn't even have that anymore.

I've also seen she's the son of a dog. I saw it on IMDb.

the sentence Lyjah's myspace a www.myspace.com/lmw6 was... looks like a joke someone put here.

You're missing the point: Fergie IS a joke.

- - - -

HARVEYJ wrote:

I edited out the part about her doing sex for drugs because I couldn´t find ANY other reference to it.

The same quote to the reporter was on the IMDB and didn´t mention this.

I am not a Black Eyed Peas fan (at all) but that type of "joking around" editing is not funny.

I have a sense of humor but slandering people isn´t funny. Grow up.

And i pantsed a boy when i was 19 and it was so funny that some girl peed her pants. 24.158.16.162 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

What is she white? She kinda looks hottt.

• Hmmm. She is, in fact, 100% Caucasian, and it is heavily rumored that she has had major plastic surgery on her face. If you look at pictures of her as a child and then at her today, the bone structure is entirely different. She also seems to have suddenly and inexplicably affected a "ghetto" personality to go with her new gig.

• According to her IMDb bio, she's has "Mexican and Native American ancestors". [1] Mikecron 10:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The IMDB isn't reliable for anything at all, though I suppose the Mexican claim could be true. Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

i'm not buying the ghetto act for shit, ok she was born in whittier which is pretty ghetto but she was raised in hacienda heights thats a few cities away from whittier & its fuckin suburbia, that city is full of mansions on top of the hills they have! how do i know this? i'm from south whittier and i'e been to hacienda heights before just so i can see their gorgeous houses.

Radio station reference

Why is this included?:

It has begun to receive airplay by several top Mainstream radio stations, such as KISS-FM in Los Angeles and WXKS-FM in Boston.

Is this considered more advertisement than fact?

It has been removed quite sometime. -- A Raider Like Indiana 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Urination Incident

There have been several attempts to include the urination incident. I ask how the hell is that relevant in an encylopedia? It has been removed before and will be removed again if it is included. What is the purpose of including every detail of a celeb's life? Grow up already. --Dysepsion 23:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of that is that a lot of people only know who she is because of the urination incident. It has been a fairly important part of her being famous. It's not including every detail of her life. Nobody cares what she has for breakfast or who her first kiss was with, but that was a public moment that brought her a lot of attention, and that's why it belongs in an encylopedia article. Also, if it has been added and removed before, there should be discussion of it on this page. There isn't. I think we should leave it until there can be some discussion and consensus. Dave 02:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

seconded. this is far more notorious than her first kiss or what cereal she likes. those things are neither encyclopedic nor important. also, it was something of an internet phenomenon. a lot of people know about this and i was surprised it wasn't up already. just google "fergie pees" or any similar combination of words, and thousands of hits come up. stop using "encyclopedic" like some kind of vague buzzword that has hardly any meaning. it deserves at least a brief mention, and is very relevant to the article. please leave this in. Joeyramoney 18:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm removing it again. Take this discussion to proper forums such as Requests for Comment and we'll see how this is encylopedic. Where exactly are you from that this is part of her "being famous"? What has brought her a lot of attention is the fact that she's part of a singing group not public urination. Many people have not even heard of this incident except for the internet. I never even heard of this until I came on Wikipedia. That argument of this incident as being part of her fame is completely ridiculous and has no bearing on such an article. Look back at the edit history and you will see that the edits of this incident is considered vandalism.

--Dysepsion 07:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked through the history and seen nothing regarding this particular issue. I didn't look at every edit, but the several I did look at that were labeled vandalism were edits like "I'd bang her silly." Beyond that, adding this information is not vandalism according to Wikipedia policy or guidelines or whatever level of authority that page has. Also, there's nothing on the talk page about this controversy, and there should be at least some discussion about information that you claim has been added and removed several times if you're going to make a unilateral decision to remove it.

Also, the Internet's a great place to learn about people and things. That's why we use Wikipedia. The fact that this incident was mainly reported via newer media sources does not make the information any less useful — or at the least, interesting. Also, different people bring different experiences to Wikipedia. You didn't hear about the urination until you saw it on Wikipedia, and I didn't hear of her until after the urination.

Next, the edits I made merely claim that reports were made that she lost bladder control. Ms. Ferguson herself claimed that the photos showed perspiration; perhaps adding that into the paragraph would make it less biased and more "encyclopedic."

I made a request for comment. Hopefully we can resolve this in a manner that is pleasing to us both. I'd be happy to work with you on finding a middle ground. Maybe some other editors can help us out. Dave 09:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I was all ready to say something like "If it got significant news coverage, we shouldn't censor it, of course it should go in." But this is just some blog, and the incident may or may not have actually happened. Pretty flimsy stuff, it should go. Gamaliel 10:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[2] check it out yourself- that's a lot of hits. Joeyramoney 00:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean if there is some source to back it up, bring in the pee. Rock stars are remebered for their music and scandals.Sethie 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Brand new article today in Scotland's Daily Record where she acknowledges and confirms the incident. It should definitely stay now that she's talked about it. Dave 19:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is exactly why I've been turned off by Wikipedia and don't edit that much anymore. You have a bunch of dumbasses on here who have no knowledge of anything else except pop culture. They then try and spin some of their edits about some stupid incident as being "encylopedic". I myself am more interested in reading about the persons accomplishments. I just don't see how someone thinks self urination is newsworthy. But hey if that's what you're into, more power to you. Now there's an image up of it? Look at the way the image is tagged: "Fergie after peeing herself (Looking idiotique)". Is that NPOV? Was that image put up for enclyopedic content in the first place? I've had thousands of edits and articles created under my belt even before this account was created, but I really don't care anymore. --Dysepsion 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This incident is just tabloid buzz, and it is quite embarassing when our articles are dominated by this stuff. I don't see much encyclopedic value in including it. It is quite reasonable that we exercise good editorial judgment in what facts we include, and how much detail we go into them. (P.S. Dysepsion, please try and avoid personal attacks on other contributors). — Matt Crypto 13:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The picture was all over the internet. The March issue of Blender magazine had an article on the Black Eyed Peas, and she refused to discuss the incident (she's quoted as rhetorically asking "Would you?"). Also, there was a joke made within one of the pictures that went along with the article ("Apl checks to make sure Fergie's dry. She is"). More importantly, Blender says that "she lost control of her bladder during a 2005 show in San Diego." Yes, Blender isn't exactly The New York Times, but someone pissing their pants generally isn't going to make the front page. In other words, while it isn't really important, I think it is a notable incident in the life of a public figure. Another point I would like to make is that stupid, embarassing things have a place in an encyclopedia. There's a small paragraph in the article for George H.W. Bush that talks about when he puked on the Prime Minister of Japan. I don't see how this is that different, besides the differences in notoriety of the two people. Seriously. It's just a pop culture article. I'm not saying that it should be meaningless and anything goes, but does it really have to be held to the same standard as say, Abraham Lincoln's article? Mhtbhm 08:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added this content, since I now have an article from Rolling Stone that clearly cites the incident. The fact is, it was news; it was everywhere. I have attempted to conform as much as possible to the NPOV policy. Please, if you have a complaint, voice it here; do not delete the entire section.160.39.190.180 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The section as it is now is unnecessarily vague. There's great care being taken to dance around and avoid having to mention urine or other bodily fluids. If the word 'perspiration' can be mentioned, so can 'the other two unnamable words'.

I personaly came here looking for info on the Urination incident. I had assured my girlfriend that we would definatly be able to find it here because Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia on the internet. However it looks like once again Borification of Wikipedia is running rampant. I am very dissapointed to have not found this info here. --Matt D 21:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a question, is her drug use more or less important than her pissing her pants, and why. I think if you are going to include parts of someones personal life, then whay not he public ones as well?

Oh for crying out loud, it was interesting and notable. ~ 210.49.194.248 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

anything that takes up almost have the talk page is important. its being discussed her on wikipedia, on tv, i read about it in playboy for gods sake. it should be added and i reallly wonder why anyone would be fighting to not have it on there. why? cause its bizare? well so is an encyclopedia entry on "fergie." this an encyclopedia, a collected volume of knowledge, but it is an encyclopedia of everything. having an entry about fergie means you have an entry about fergie. and fergie pissed herself in public and it is part of her career. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.180.48 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I actually agree with Matt that doesn't edit anymore. Its even stupid in the long run to add it. There is NO evidence that it affected her career negatively or positively.

She peed onstage once.

It was an embarassing incident for her. We get it.

However, everytime that she is covered in the news, they don't introduce her as "the formerly piss stained singer..." Compare this to Michael Jackson whose private life is a whole series of what could be considered bizarre events. I say that unless references can be provided that state the great impact (that some posters are alleging) this had on her career, then it is irrelevant and needs to go--Art8641 19:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it totally crass. Can we vote to have it removed? --Adoniscik 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because consensus agreed to leae it in. Plus, voting should not be used as a substitute for discussion. I agree, however, that it's a terrible event, but if we remove it, we'd likely be violating NPOV. Acalamari 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this really material fit for an encyclopædia? --Adoniscik 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask a new question. This issue has been settled. Disscussion has covered all angles. It stays in. Goodbye. --Matt D 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Its Ridiculous that this website is supposed to be an encyclopedia and they barley have any information on her aside "THE URINATION INCIDENT". Of everything she's accomplished you people choose to put THAT in there? And it has its own section?!?!. Paris Hilton dosent have every moronic things shes done in her profile. Her profile is chock full of her acting, singing, dancing, modeling" skills. Her page makes Fergie looks like a joke. I think its fine to include it in the future, but for the love of god add more.

Why don't you add more? If you want to see it happen then do it. It's no one persons responsibility.--Matt D 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish people didn't use the standard wiki comeback (why don't YOU write something) everytime a casual user asked for an article's improvement. If it is meant to encourage people it does not come across that way. It actually tends to put them off in the tals sections I have seen. --Art8641 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

clarity?

Just as a matter of clarity, since the article is about Stacy Ferguson and not Justin Timberlake or Britney Spears, should the sentence "She dated Justin Timberlake before Britney Spears." be rephrased or expanded since in the literal sense (in that all facts are pertinent to Stacy Ferguson) this would imply that she dated both Justin and Britney, in that order. Unless of course she actually did, I have no actual evidence either way but in the pop culture gossip circle this wouldn't be true. Just thought I would throw that in there, wikipedia is all about the details. --Jmeden2000 04:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

o sorry i was talking about my self right there. 24.158.16.162 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing image

How do images just disappear like that? Dave 05:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Better fotos

There are many problems with the photos, someone post a new one, then 7 days later, another editor post another one.... Try to use the same foto with the correct copyrighted source, to avoid this problems.

supposedly she met will i am in minneapolis at the "star party" not in "an (unnamed) la venue" as the article says.

Why is the urination controversy still not mentioned in the article???... 24.202.175.132 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The urination incident!

Again...why isn't Fergies documented public urination mentioned in the article? Why isn't it considered a relevant piece of pop-culture? I'm just repeating what everyone else has been trying to say and I thought we came to a conclusion that it was admissable? The Canadian artist "Peaches" has recently made a parody of BEP'S "My Humps" making fun of the incident. I don't understand why we can have the tid-bit that she loves "Cap'n Crunch" in this article but not that she publically urinated multiple times on stage.

yeah guys, can we please just let this go and leave it in? it gets a lot of google hits. i know it doesn't seem "encyclopedic", but neither is All your base are belong to us. no harm will be done whatsoever if it were left in, but it would deprive the internet of a little bit of information if left out. not a lot, but just enough for wikipedia to be less helpful. now let's just calm down and let it go. at least you guys can give me a message if you really want to talk it out. Joeyramoney 00:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

okay, after three days none of the wiki-zealots have deleted it. i guess one more reference might help to appease these people. Joeyramoney 20:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

wow, there is no pleasing these people. i notice that no one has said a word about removing her role on rocket power, which strikes me as odd, since that is infinitely less notable. the incident got relatively widespread tabloid coverage, and recieves a great deal of google hits. no good would come from deleting this. Joeyramoney 05:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fergie DOES urinate? Loool.... Fight or Flight? Bend or Break? :)) 84.3.175.159 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's not like she dropped trou and spritzed the audience,

emotionally charged moments are known to unleash any number of body fluids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sochwa (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Read the first paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_retention - I think the incident may be more relevant than some think considering her history. Of course, that kind of speculation is original research and shouldn't be in the article, but its a reason for including the incident.

-I would consider a widespread public embarassment noteworthy in a celebrity's career.--70.29.71.46 18:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I will tell you why people are fighting this. Cause they work for Fergie. Someone is editing this thing for her as part of her PR image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.180.48 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Right title for Fergie

Just like Ashanti, Jewel, Glory and Tweet, I think this page should be named "Fergie (singer)" instead of her real name Stacy Ferguson. I mean, everywhere, they use it on wikipedia, and Fergie shouldn't be an exception, so I'm changing the title to "Fergie (singer)". Discuss it here. -- Luigi-ish 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose unlike those 4 who are always known for those names, she is known by IMDB and most magazines as Stacy Ferguson, Fergie is just an nickname, it's much better off to just revert and leave the name per WP:MOS. Same situation as Tupac Shakur, who was known as 2Pac in the stage and a move was declined badly there. We don't normally switch to there stage names here. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Damn, and I already started with fixing the double redirects... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi-ish (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if IMDB means anything. They have André 3000 listed as André Benjamin and Jewel listed as Jewel Kilcher. And if you look at her website, Fergie doesn't appear to be just her nickname. I did a search on google news and most headlines say "Fergie...." I think there's a strong case to move. it's true that alot of artitles mention her real name, but that's probably to separate her from the other famous Fergie. Crumbsucker 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Agree - she is best known as her stage name and IMDB isn't that reliable. mirageinred 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Agree When I went to look her up today, I searched for Fergie, and I was shocked to see it titled under "Stacy Fergason" to be honest, I didnt even know that was her name until just now. Thats why I checked the talk page to see if this was brought up before. Aspensti 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - She only started calling herself fergie in the last couple years since she joined Black Eyed Peas however she has worked under the name Stacy Furguson long before that and still does sometimes. However the page Fergie (singer) should redirect here. Rainer1 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Agree I only know her as Fergie, and she is by more well known under that name. JeffyP 06:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Agree Just a google search for the name "Fergie" turns up hundres of articles and such about "Stacy" and not Fergie the Dutchess. 68.37.55.81 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Agree No one knows her by her real name, only Fergie.

How bout instead of creating confusion just put in Stacy Ferguson(Fergie)? That might solve the problem.

Awards section

This is almost all Black Eyed Peas-related. Shouldn't this all be on the Black Eyed Peas page? Seems very redundant. If she wins things with her solo material that makes sense to have it here, but otherwise its cruft and complete overkill. -- eo 00:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC) MEOW

Question

Is it relevant to include in an encyclopedia that she is probably functionally illiterate? 67.114.85.158 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Any sources or way to prove it isn't slander? Liqker 08:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, about about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

if there is a source for the info it should be included. even if its just variety magazine or something speculating. cause the info is that variety magazine has speculated that she cant read. it is the same as the reports on tom cruise being gay. but then again there is plenty of documentation on her pissing herself, including pics, and that isnt listed so i doubt we can get anything like it on the page. someone will just take it down. we should just scrap this entry entirely since some writers seem to just want to cut and paste the marketing blurbs from fergie website.

Why isn't this page moved?

This page should be moved to Fergie, because she is best known as her stage name. mirageinred 19:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fergie is dead?

I heard rumors that Fergie was dead, i kow that is not true but how did the rumors created? what they created bye me. 80.76.46.221 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Steve

Just people who don't like Fergie. Pay no attetion to them. Tcatron565 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Acting Career

Given that I haven't seen the Posideon remake yet (and can't spell it :) but from what I understand, she basically appeared in the movie as a singer. Does that really warrant mentioning her persuing acting, or should it be worded as "appeared in the movie as a singer..." This is like saying that Steve Vai began an acting career when he appeared in Crossroads as a guitar player. Sabalon 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, i once flew a friends plane for a few minutes that doesnt make me a pilot. either there are some over zealous wikiwriters, a fanboy is taking over this page or fergie IS making her own changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.180.48 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, tell you the truth, she wasnt an actress in that movie, but she can act. She will be acting in the upcoming movie, "GrindHouse"

Better Main Picture

The main picture of her is absolutly aweful, it almost dosent look like her. If anyone can dig up a better picture that would be great. Aspensti 18:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

well-scrubbed?

Well scrubbed? --Gbleem 04:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well-scrubbed; it is a compound adjective: What a well-[adjective] [noun] you have there...

Default Picture

A Better More Current Fergie Picture Is Needed. Thanks. =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineralxd (talk • contribs) 06:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any acceptable picture would have to be a free image. Copyrighted promotional images, etc., would not be acceptable. --Yamla 14:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Better Pic

Could someone please put a better pic in here? Solid Fox 20:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

how bout a pic of her piss all over her skirt or whatever it was?

Urination incident (again)

Under what section should the embarassment of urinating herself on stage go?

It's been debated whether the incident should be included in an encyclopedia article at all; see above. Is it a notable fact in her biography? — Matt Crypto 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would consider a widespread public embarassment noteworthy in a celebrity's career.--70.29.71.46 18:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't. I'm more interested in someone's accomplishments, controversies, and other noteworthy news. If you want something unencylopedic go read the tabloids. But then again that's just me. After all this time, I just find it funny that there's no pleasing you pro-urination people. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

why do care if it goes in? how does adding to an article hurt it?by picking my nose that is what will hert it.67.172.61.222 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering your history of vandalism, I'm not going to feed the trolls --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that, then, has it been reported anywhere that we can use as a reliable source? I've done some Googling, and only come across blogs, tabloids and celebrity gossip columns. — Matt Crypto 18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care where it goes, just put that embarassment in, because she is a proud whore.

70.81.216.182 08:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Name-calling was unnecessary. Some people should really just be blocked

Lots and lots of people go online to find out what the pee story is all about - just check out any message board devoted to Fergie. Is wikipedia admitting that it can't help those people out? 76.211.87.209 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to include only facts that can be verified in reliable sources. I have not found a reliable source for this fact, only tabloids, forums and blogs. — Matt Crypto 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to whether this should be included, but it was mentioned in her Rolling Stone cover story interview: "She blames an infamous incident when she peed her pants during a San Diego concert last year on "being buzzed" and having no time to use the restroom." [3] --Muchness 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, that could be probably considered a reliable source in this context. There's also this page, which quotes the Daily Record, a Scottish tabloid. There seems to be no doubt that it's true, and lots of people want this info. I think we should include it. — Matt Crypto 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Definatly. It has a reliable source. It is obvious that it did happen. It is notable. It is interesting and it is at least as encyclopedic as All Your Base Are Belong To Us(though I think it just is encyclopedic.). It should be re added and not touched after.--Matt D 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Instrument

I noticed that the infobox says she plays the bongo drums, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Is this true or vandalism? —ShadowHalo 04:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarify

Did she have a miscarriage or was that a dream of mine?

Well...........is the urination incident going to be included then? For the love of God.........

See previous discussion about this. I think it should be. — Matt Crypto 00:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I did read the lengthy discussion, but I must of missed the results part....Why shouldn't it be included? I know its getting a bit sad nitpicking at this for the past..what, year? It just seems keeping it out is kinda bias. Isn't it enough that even one person wants this information?

It's currently included in the article. — Matt Crypto 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The urination should be included. And since there are photographs they should be posted.

Article Picture

Could someone please replace the arcticle picture with a higher quality image and preferably only her in the picture. - .* this message from natasha 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we would if we had such a photo that was freely licensed. Do you know of any? — Matt Crypto

We should get a pic of the pissing incident up here.

Place of birth

Everytime I come on here the place of birth always keeps changing. I would like to reach some sort of consensus. Currently it states that she was born in Hacienda Heights. Sources all over the internet give two locations: Hacienda Heights and Whittier, California. The discrepency probably arises from the fact that she grew up in Hacienda Heights but was born in Whittier. Unless she was delivered at home, there's no way she could've been born in Hacienda Heights, because the city has no hospital and never had one. Can this be clarified in the article? I hate to be nitpick but this is an encyclopedia afterall. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Urination Incident III

The User Steve7241 continues to remove this part of the article. What should happen? I don't want to get into an edit war with this User. Exactly what should we do with the urination incident? It's sourced information, and I will revert it agaib, but if I revert it again after that, I will end up breaking the three-revert rule. Any suggestions? Acalamari 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Because its not part of her music career. Fergie is HUMAN. Humans Pee. She didnt go a press meeting or made important statements. They were just pictures. -Steve7241

I've never agreed with the inclusion of the urination incident. It's unecyclopedic and nothing more than tabloid. The argument is always "as long as it's sourced". Where do we draw the line? You can find a citation for a lot of things. You can probably get a source for the name of a celebrity's pet, but do we include it? Of course not. I've always been highly suspicious of the inclusion of this incident because of the many anon users who included it a while ago. I really don't understand why people are so adament in including this info and I find it very silly why so much of this talk page is devoted to this incident. If you want to include this info PLEASE give a better or more comprehensive explanation for the inclusion other than "well..it's sourced". Does this incident enhance the overall encyclopedic informational quality of the article? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. She is the first celebrity to urinate on stage infront of people by accident. She addmitted to doing it in ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE. If rolling stone thinks its worthwhile to bother asking her about it than obviously they think their readers want to know. I came to this article originaly looking for info on this because as a mild fan of some of fergies tunes the buzz around this interested me. Just like it will interest and has interested thousands of others. thats why people want to add it. It is not "tabloid" because it is true. the source is Rolling Stone. a very reliable source. Just like George bush sr puking on that guy, this appeals to perhaps an arguably less mature or more gossipy part of the psyche but it is appealing none the less.

I think one could probably argue that urinating on stage, though not directly contributing to her career, is still the most interesting thing fergie has ever done. --Matt D 15:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone with a multi-platinum selling album with a number one single in the US and another one in the UK who is part of another multi-platinum selling Grammy Award winning group (an accomplishment which is extremely rare) and the urination incident is the most interesting thing she's ever done? Wow, that really is a sad commentary of what people are looking for. The Rolling Stone article is a rather long piece and talks in length about her past drug abuse, childhood, etc. the urination incident is given but two sentences. That's really stretching it. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of people who have had number one singles in many differant places. Grammys are handed out every year by the truck load. But urinating in your pants on stage is a rare thing indeed. Is the fact that this is exremly interesting a sad commentary on humankind? sure, from a certain point of view maybe, but how does that change its factual nature? Why does that necessitate it's removal? The rolling stone article wasn't completly dedicated to this incident? It only gave a small mention too it? well thats all thats happening here. The only argument against this thats being given breaks down to this: ITS GROSS. Thats the only reason people don't want this in here. They can dress it up with "Unencyclopedic" and try to say that its "not really a big part of her career" but the very fact that this incident generates the amount of buzz it does is because it is interesting and people want to know about it. If people want to know about it and they want to know the facts we should put them out here. thats what wikipedia is about. thats why people come to wikipedia. We have a reliable source on this information. I'm satisfied with the process that took place in keeping this info off until we had a good source. But too keep it out now is simply omitting the truth to appease some gut feeling. --Matt D 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"There are thousands of people who have had number one singles in many differant places. Grammys are handed out every year by the truck load." That is by far one of the most misinformed statements I've read. On the top of my head, Rob Thomas, Beyoncé, Gwen Stefani and Justin Timberlake are only a handful who share Fergie's accomplishments/credentials with #1 solo singles and being part of Grammy Award winning groups. You can dress it up as "sources", "cited" etc. but it really is sad why people can cite something so trivial (twice in this article) about a pop star's urination incident yet can't cite scientific articles on Wikipedia which is part of the reason why this site is mockery by so many people in the public. The inclusion serves as nothing more than tabloid gossip to people who are more interested in something other than a person's accomplishments and controversies. It’s unecyclopedic not necessarily because it’s gross, (which it is) but it doesn’t enhance the overall quality of the article. Maybe if there was a separate “Trivia” section such as the one with Bush Sr.’s article where it mentions his throwing up on during a dinner in Japan, I would see how this would enhance it. If the urination was tied into her past problems with drinking and her penchant for still drinking occasionally and getting buzzed (which the Rolling Stone article mentions) I would see how it would be included. But everytime it’s included, all it says is that she urinated on herself and that’s it. I live in the entertainment capital in the world, yet I never even heard of this incident until I came on this article. But I guess the focus of news media around the US is different. But since people love this incident so much and feel the need to have multiple citations and love something which in the long run, won't matter, I don't care anymore. Have your way with the incident. It's pointless to argue. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammy Award Winners, Number one Singles --Matt D 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's pretty distasteful, and was initially opposed to inclusion, but I've come to the conclusion that we can't let that sort of thing override the need to provide information about notable incidents, however unseemly the subject matter. Several people have commented here having come to Wikipedia specifically to try and work out whether the "pee incident" is true or not, and have complained about us not including it. I find myself agreeing that we should include it as part of our mission to provide information. I would judge it as encyclopedic, however tabloid. (P.S. It's doubly cited because it's a living person bio, and a very negative fact. I added the cites, if I recall correctly. I also edit scientific articles, and source those just as thoroughly.) — Matt Crypto 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, by the fact the incident is well sourced is a good reason to leave it in. I was lead to believe that if something on Wikipedia is sourced, then it normally stays in. If the incident wasn't sourced, however, I would have it removed, but it's sourced. Someone else will have to re-add it. If I do, I'll break the 3RR. Acalamari 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To be fair, not every fact that can be well-sourced should be in an encyclopedia article. There's a point where things become too trivial. I think this incident is sufficiently notable, though. — Matt Crypto 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Performances" Section.

I'm not going to delete this section outright. I've added a "citation needed" tag and cleaned it up a bit. What does everyone want to do with this section that Fergie bep created? Can it be sorted into the "music career" section or not? Acalamari 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it would detract from the article as a whole if it were deleted... baetterdoe 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Fergie (singer) → Fergie — Requested by User:Iwasblueonce: Stacy Ferguson is more recognized as just Fergie than any of the other uses. Muchness 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose Although she is more well known, people do still recognize her as Stacey Ferguson. There is already a disambiguation page if people search for Fergie. Timclare ^(talk) _{(sign here)} 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: Yeah, and people recognize Beyonce as Beyonce Knowles, right?

   And Pink as Alecia Beth Moore—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwasblueonce (talk • contribs) 00:04, Feb 9, 2007 (UTC)

   I thikn you'll find that neither of the above names stated in your arguement actually HAVE the pages that you refer to. Beyonce is under Beyonce Knowles and Pink (Alecia Beth Moore) is under Pink (singer)!

2. Oppose Leave Fergie (singer) as the article is. Why does she need to be moved for? Typing in "Fergie" in the search leads to the disambiguation, and then you can click on any of the "Fergies" that are on Wikipedia. I don't understand why this article needs to be moved. Acalamari 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Um...I think the former Duchess of York has more lasting notability as "Fergie" then the Black eyed peas singer. A strong argument could be made for Sarah Ferguson to be the Primary topic but the status quo is fine. 205.157.110.11 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

   Re: Nobody really cares about the Duchess of York. Sorry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwasblueonce (talk • contribs) 00:04, Feb 9, 2007 (UTC)

   LOL! Tell that to every major news press and tabloid service in the world. :p Think about it. Let say that one of the two "Fergies" pulls a Winona and gets caught shoplifting at Tiffanys or even get married. Who do you think would get the bigger press coverage? Who do you think that anyone over the age of 15 would care about more? It's a no-brainer. 205.157.110.11 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose While the singer may seem to be "clearly" the predominant use to a Black-Eyed Peas fan, the Duchess has a strong claim as well, and a Gsearch indicates that the Manchester United guy actually gets more hits than either of them (though the singer gets the top results for just "fergie"). Also, belittling the other Fergies is more likely to cause a backlash than to persuade. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

   That's true. Alex Ferguson holds a lot of sway in the soccer world. Though he tends not to be called Fergie as often as the Duchess. 205.157.110.11 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose. SAF has worn Fergie in UK nearly since before the Peas singer was born, globally (except US that is) since early 90s. Try an RM again a bit later when the buzz has lasted into her sixties. —MURGH ^disc. 18:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. The Duchess of York is known to more people as Fergie than the singer. Not going to comment on SAF since I'm not a football fan and hadn't heard of him prior to this string, but the Duchess is reason enough to oppose the move. --Bobblehead 21:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York is much better known as Fergie. 70.55.84.112 06:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose If someone says the name Fergie to me, I think of Sir Alex Ferguson, so I would have to say leave Fergie as a disambig page, as there are many Fergies. Asics talk 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose, The Duchess of York and Alex Ferguson are both well known by this nickname. PC78 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• This move request was filed by Iwasblueonce[4]. I shifted it to a more appropriate section[5] and added this "Requested move" section to complete the move request. I have no opinion on whether the article should be moved. --Muchness 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

--Muchness 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Engaged or dating?

The most recent reference I can find from a reliable source states that she's not currently engaged: "I've heard that I've been engaged probably about seven times, and pregnant, but I've never been either" (People, Feb 2, 2007). Can someone point me to a more recent reliable source that states that she's engaged? --Muchness 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fergie has been dating Josh Duhamel well before 2007. I heard that she's been dating him as early as 2005. I don't know how true the info about her being engaged is, so I put the "citation needed" tag on that. Acalamari 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Other activities section.

I created the "Other activities" section because there were some things in this article which did not belong in sections like "Music career" and "Acting career." The article looks better now that I have created the section. Acalamari 19:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Girls Don't Cry

Why does this single have chart positions at #1 for all countries and a whopping sales chart of 12m when this single is still to be release? Berserkerz Crit 18:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we find a better picture of here?

The picture on the main page sucks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.13.211.24 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I assume you mean the picture of Stacy Ferguson on the article itself; as her picture is not on the main page. As for the image, we can only use images that are released for fair or free use. Acalamari 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

relationships

If she gives an interview that is patently genuine and has significant information about her life, then there does not need a discussion here about it. In fact, reversion is vandalism. She has admitted that she went on a sex and drugs spree when she got to 18. She said: "I have had lesbian experiences in the past. I won't say how many men I've had sex with - but I am a very sexual person." http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/tm_headline=fergie--i-was-a-lesbian&method=full&objectid=18844637&siteid=89520-name_page.html Let's not behave like brain-dead preteens. NIghtjar 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The reversion was not vandalism, and no bad-faith was intended. I was just doing what I've learned: controversial matters should be discussed on the talk page first. I was not disputing what you wrote, or implying that you were a vandal. Acalamari 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

High School

I believe Fergie Attended John F Kennedy High School. She has mentioned this before, and her picture is up in a wall of fame at my high school (kennedy). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.219.249 (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Criticism?

I couldn't help but notice that there's no criticism mentioned on this page. Surely there's been some criticism. Just look at the article for My Humps for example. (Tyler ) 07:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Better Picture

Does anybody have a better picture of Fergie? The one that is currently there isn't the best one of her.

I will see if my friend who went to see a concert with her in it has any better ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Save-Me-Oprah (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Drug addiction

I've removed the following section: "She told a Glasgow paper, 'I started doing ecstasy. Then I got addicted to crystal methamphetamine. My weight dropped to 90 lbs so I lied to my friends and said I was bulimic. Finally, I started going crazy.'" Talking about drug addictions without providing a source is the very definition of what should not be happening (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material). Feel free to put it back in if someone can find a source for the quote. ShadowHalo 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't know why that wasn't removed before. To be honest, the only place I've found out about her drug addiction was the NNDB...but that's not a reliable source. Apart from there, I don't know of any other places that said about Fergie having a drug addiction. Acalamari 16:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fergie Languages

Fergie's wikipedia page is now in Catalan, you should add to the languages in the box. Thanks

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fergie (singer)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

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.

Last edited at 03:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)