Talk:Beyoncé/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

French category

I saw the "category:American people of French descent" Is that right? if so. why?--Anen87 (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

her RECORD sales as a solo act.

she has absolutely not sold only 15million, both singles and album, that's crazy

she has sold 6million on b'day and 11 million on DIL, and the singles are crazy she has sold 6million with crazy in love, 3 million check on it, 5 million on irreplaceable and MORE!

it's impossible she has sold only 15million singles and album, please change it, the safest would be 30million!!!, that is true! ya'll know that!!! it's on AMA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlaws001 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, I heard she had sold at least 26 million before her last tour and then sales always go up during and after tours. Wneedham02 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

if you say record it's not clear... you have to say that you're talking about albums and singles! --93.146.248.243 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

yah maybe it's unclear if i say reacord, but it's unfair to say she has sold 15million ALBUMS and SINGLES? are you crazy? she has sold more than 18m albums alon, plus her singles sells millions, crazy in love sold 6.5m alone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlaws001 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dangerously in love has only sold 6 million copies as an album, and Crazy In Love has not sold anywhere near 6.5 million copies. It's only been certifield gold in the U.S. matter of fact. PhoenixPrince (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow up

According to an article published by The New York Times dated November 20008, Knowles has sold more than 75 million albums worldwide, including releases with Destiny's Child. Link. But according to Billboard magazine and BBC, articles which were published way back 2006 and 2007, respectively, claimed that she has only sold over 50 million album worldwide. I think we should use the newest source? --Efe (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's a reliable source that's more up-to-date. DiverseMentality 23:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(NEW YORK TIMES IS FULL OF SH*T). They also claimed that B-day went 5x Platinum and remember what they did to Obama (which is a different story)

Anyway, Destiny CHILD has only sold 50 freaking records W.W. (including ALBUMS AND SINGLES) according to the RIAA, MEDIA TRAFFIC, and BILLBOARD.

DIL has sold 8 million copies and BDAY has sold 6. BEYONCE has also sold around 15 million singles and that's about it.

wow. there are a lot of lies in her biography! and why isnt it mentioned that there are numerous rumors about her jealousy!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.85.29 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC) LET ME REPEAT, NONE OF THAT EQUALS 120 MILLION RECORDS. Obviously, her label is having her sales fabricated which is sad and pathetic. I saw the behind the scenes footage at the WMA and her father talked about how he helped plan the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyoncefan504 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

according to WMA 2008 beyonce has sold more than 120million records worldwide.. is World Music Awards. The World Music Awards (founded in 1989) is an international awards show that annually honors recording artists based on their worldwide sales figures, which are provided by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). Tell me shouldn't it be posted in here.. I mean are we saying that WMA is lying? after all the awards?...

Hah! Are you kidding?? 120 millions, do you know how many records that is?? She couldn't be farther away from that figure. And the WMA are the silliest award show ever and the most unreliable at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.246.174 (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now Elle magazine says it's 100 million. Anyone have an idea which one is correct? DiverseMentality 03:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Before her performance on The X Factor (UK) the host said she'd sold over 100 million. Wneedham02 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

She has officially sold 55.850.000 albums and singles as of today (May 20th 2009) as a solo artist this in on top of the 56.000.000 albums and singles Destiny's Child have sold worldwide, shouldn't these be added? Wneedham02 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these facts should be in the article with a reliable source, which it sounds like you have. However, you have to say it is including digital and physical single sales, NOT JUST album sales. Because Beyonce's figures, even including Destiny's Child, when it comes to album sales are no where near that numebr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.218.24 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC) THE WORLD RECORD SALES have to be in the 50million range due to Dangeroulsy in love alone sold 33million copiew WORLDWIDE she sells like 10million a pop in japan alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insignastar1 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) last night on 60minutes it was reported that combined with destiny's child beyonce has sold 118million records.Set and match haters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insignastar1 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RACISM

why would anyone even decice to put a section on racism i thinbk it is rude and impolite

You're section on the racism and sexism towards Beyonce does not cite a reliable source. Your source cited as 138 on the page, only links to an article written on an the internet by a journalist, giving their personal opinion. There are many many blogs written on the internet about light-skinned girls and Beyonce is just one of them. I feel this is some kind of ploy for sympathy??? I would hardly say that article is a reliable source and it will be interesting to see what your response to that is.Ms Scarlett Dracula (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it gets just about the play it deserves. The topic gets about four lines in the article, and presents criticism that she does actually get: that she trades excessively on her looks, and the accusations of photo retouching and makeup to lighten her skin. If it went on for paragraphs, it would be excessive, but to not mention the criticism would go too far the other way.—Kww(talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Kww, you fail. A lot photos are touched up in magazines and whatnot. Mr. C.C. (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at all these sources and they don't even say what you are trying to prove. One talked about Sony saying Destiny's Child has sold 50 million albums by 2005, BUT that was including solo sales ASWELL! Second another source said that Beyonce's sales have reached 100 million according to Sony. This number is not ALBUM SALES DUMBASSES! I get it includes Destiny's Child but it also includes album sales, physical and digital single sales, and dvds!!!! You people are being sooooo biased! There is no way in hell Beyonce has sold anywhere near a 100 million albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.218.24 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Signature Fragrance Launch 2010

Beyonce continues to expand her business ventures by working with Coty, a fragrance manufacture, to produce her own signature fragrance set to launch in Spring 2010. Beyonce has been the spokeswoman and face of Tommy Hilfiger’s True Star and Emporio Armani Diamonds. According to WWD.com, the contract could earn $20 million over the next three years.^[1] As stated in Coty’s press release Beyonce said,” Working with Coty, I was able to turn my ideal fragrance into a reality by creating an alluring and sophisticated fragrance: one that’s reflective of my inner power.”^[2] Since the announcement of her fragrance release, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. has sued Beyonce for potentially naming the fragrance Sasha Fierce which would violate trademark rights. According to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Abercrombie and Fitch Co. currently has a men’s fragrance called Fierce and has trademarked the word “fierce” since 2002 and 2003 respectively.^[3] The lawsuit contends Beyonce could “unfairly benefit from the reputation Abercrombie has built for the scent and could confuse or deceive customers into thinking Abercrombie is associated with her fragrance.”^[4] However, a statement released by Coty claimed neither Fierce nor Sasha Fierce will be used as the fragrance’s name. There was a similar suit that was filed by Abercrombie in September 2008 when Beyonce tried to trademark “Sasha Fierce” for a fragrance and other products.^[5] Roddenakirksey (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be added to the article now as the official fragrance website is up along witht he commercial being released. [1] Wneedham02 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

this guy who wrote before me is a complete ignoramus.She has sold 100million albums!!!!50 million with Destiny's Child and the 6million and 12million and 5million with her other albums are only US SALES U IDIOT!!!Crazy in love world wide has sold over 25million copies..PLEASE STOP WITH THE HATE ON THE BEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insignastar1 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Beyonce: Beyond The Ballad

It Is NOT Released From Sony BMG And Is Unauthorized. Please Remove It. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bday0495 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think its unauthorized. No promotion activities going on with Knowles' camp. --Efe (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Most top 10s

Jay Z has the most top 10 hits this decade with 14, so we need to fix this article guys. BTW, the RIAA does not include DVD Sales, Ringtones, etc with Single/Album sales so we need change her total sales or just keep it with 75M like it was already was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.65.7 (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Destiny's Child first #1

The article states that Destiny's Child's first #1 single was "Bills Bills Bills" from the "The Writing on the Wall" album when in actuality, their first #1 single was their FIRST single from their FIRST entitled "No No No". Please correct that. Beyonce mentions this fact all the time during live shows. For any Beyonce fan, Just watch her DVD "Live at Wembly" or the "Live in Atlanta" dvd for Destiny Fulfilled and right before she performs that song, she states that "No No No" is in fact Destiny's Child first #1 single. Thanx and Good day.68.171.233.44 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"No, No, No" was a number one single on the R&B chart, not the Hot 100. A lot of artists count refer to those chart toppers as #1's as well, but their first #1 single on the Hot 100 was indeed "Bills, Bills, Bills." Jdot01 (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Female Artist of the Decade

Beyonce was not named Female Artist of the Decade, Billboard doesn't have a Honor for that. She came in 4th place and just happened to be the highest female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.134.156 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they do. If you read her description, they specifically call her "Billboard's Top Female Artist of the 2000's. Ref Jdot01 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding Native American categories to the article??

User:Mcelite insists on adding Native American categories for Beyonce to this article, and it's become an issue. I don't think the categories he wants to add should be added. I've put this problem down on an administration noticeboard here, and the administrator who replied to me, User:Scott MacDonald, suggested that the ethnic categories placed in the article should comply with the ethnicity that the person (in this case Beyoncé Knowles) has claimed themselves. Shown here is a recent suggestion made by User:Off2riorob that is similar to the suggestion made by admin Scott MacDonald, that self-identification be the basis for what ethnic categories are placed in the article. I myself have explained self-identification to user Mcelite on his talk page, as it takes highest priority especially concerning things as sticky and sensitive as race and ethnicity. If Beyonce was half Native American, then I could understand user Mcelite's motives, but she is not even half Native American. She is not even 1/4 Native American. Continuing from the passage about self-identification, I've explained to user Mcelite that Beyonce is African American and that she of course always regards herself as African American, but to him, a minority of Native American heritage means that Native American categories should be added to the article, even though she is not Native American. Here are a few examples and sources where she claims African American/black ethnicity.

Source 1 42 seconds into this video, "And I'm proud of that, especially being an African American woman."

Source 2 2 minutes and 45 seconds into this video, "For me to be a young woman, a young African American woman that could do even..."

Source 3 Quote from an interview with the LA Times: "I want to do a superhero movie and what would be better than Wonder Woman? It would be great. And it would be a very bold choice. A black Wonder Woman would be a powerful thing. It's time for that, right?"

Source 4 Quote from an interview with Gill Pringle: "I want to be the first black woman to win an Oscar, a Tony and a Grammy. I already have the Grammys, so I just have two more awards to go."

User Mcelite wants to add all of the following categories to the article: Native American actors, Native American models, Native American musicians, Native American singers, and Native American songwriters. Adding all of these categories is pushing it way overboard, and they don't belong, because Beyonce is not a Native American actors, or model, or musician, or singer, or songwriter. User Mcelite may say that those categories are for anyone of partial heritage, but that is not how these categories are meant to be used, and using them in such a way results in over-categorization and confusion as to who in the category is actually a Native American person and who isn't. I've told user Mcelite that I have added a category to this article titled Americans of Native American descent to comply with the bit of Native American heritage that she does have, and that this category is most appropriate due to the keyword "descent," but this is not enough for him.

The administrator user Scott MacDonald suggested that ethnic categories comply with the person's own ethnic claim and be backed with reliable sources. As I've shown above, there are reliable sources of Beyonce declaring herself an African American woman. She has never claimed to be a Native American woman, and thus there are no such sources. Since Beyonce has been African American all of her life, and always regards herself as African American, and has only a minority of Native American heritage, I think the Native American descent category is what should stay, and all of the other Native American categories that user Mcelite wants to add not be added. Surelyhuman (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I also support this position, if she herself has not show affinity to these cats there is little benefit to putting her in all these cats, the one is plenty. I support Native American descent only. Off2riorob (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's biased to only allow Native American descent. She is rightfully applies to the categories which I CREATED. She is not of full blood with African American so why isn't that up for removal? I see nothing but the thinking pattern of the one drop rule taking place and it's insulting plus embarrassing. It's amazing if she was part Latina I don't think there would be an issue but mention Native American and there is an uproar. And to say 1/4 how do you know that? Did you take a DNA test? Even if you did a DNA test wouldn't be able to completely identify how many Native ancestors she has in her family. I will not uphold such ignorance because blood is blood and that's the way I see it. She made a song about her Creole heritage but I'm not using that as a source. James Brown said I'm black and I'm proud yet he's part Apache for certain. Your arguement is weak for the removal of the categories that she rightfully belongs too.Mcelite (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How strong are the citations that support Amer Indian, who is the related Indian? Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking around, the person seems not to be known and it is a pretty weak comment from her Grandmother, I still support removal of what I see as excessive cats in this field. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for you, Mcelite, to stress that you created the Native American categories in question. It matters not who created the categories; the categories aren't meant to be used in the way that you want to use them. I'm sorry that you are insulted and embarrassed because you think you see the one drop rule taking place, but that is a personal problem with yourself, not a public one. It's not at all biased to insist that the NA descent category is the appropriate NA category, and please don't make such accusations. I could also say it's biased to insist on adding every NA category to this article, thus the points would be moot, so lets leave labels out of the conversation. You're also being very speculative regarding your hypothetical situation of a Latino heritage. That would be an entirely different situation with entirely different factors and concerns, and I don't think it can so simply be compared to the problem here. And again, because you don't seem to understand what a black/African American person is:

The term "Black or African American" refers to people having origins in any of the Black race groups of Africa. It includes people who reported "Black, African Am., or Negro" or wrote in entries such as African American, Afro American, Nigerian, or Haitian.
Census 2000 showed that that United States population on April 1, 2000, was 284.4 million. Of the total, 36.4 million, or 12.9 percent, reported Black or African American. This number includes 34.7 million people, or 12.3 percent, who reported only Black in addition to 1.8 million people, or 0.6 percent, who reported Black as well as one or more other races.
Census 2000 asked separate questions on race and Hispanic or Latino origin. Hispanics who reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with one or more races, are included in the number for Blacks.

Source: The Black Population: 2000; United States Census Bureau

You are familiar with the United States Census Bureau [2]? I don't know how else to tell you this. From these bullets you should now be well informed of what a black/African American person is, and that Beyonce is African American in every sense of the word, including her own word.

Let's also leave out assumptions of another editors knowledge. I'm going to explain this to you, so follow along carefully: Beyonce's father, Mathew Knowles, is black, which means Beyonce is automatically 1/2 black. Beyonce's mother, Tina Knowles, is of African American, Native American, and French descent. The French comes from Beyonce's mother's mother, Agnez Beyince, who was a French American Creole woman. This means that Beyonce's mother Tina is of 1/2 French descent, which means that Beyonce is of 1/4 French descent, since her father has zero French descent. So far that is 1/2 black and 1/4 French. Now since Beyonce's mother is of black, Native American, and French descent, this means that Beyonce's last 1/4 block of heritage is a combination of black and Native American from Beyonce's mother's father, Lumis Beyince. Therefore Beyonce is not 1/4 Native American. She is majority black by far, 1/4 French, and a minority of Native American descent. This is not Original Research, this is simple figuring from sources already in use on the article and what Beyonce has spoken about. That you Mcelite apparently aren't well aware of Beyonce's heritage is not my ignorance. That fact that she contains so little NA heritage might mean that the NA descent category I proposed might not be necessary at all, but I'm still proposing it as a compromise. All of the NA categories user Mcelite insists on adding are taking it over and beyond.

So far, Off2riorob, Mcelite, and myself have expressed our opinions on this matter. If any other editors want to add their two cents, please feel welcome to. Surelyhuman (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I made it seem that I was being stuck up about the fact that I created the categories. I main concern is that this is nothing more than enforcing the one drop rule. We don't know for certain that her father is solely African American if he is he is a rarity in all honesty. For you to use the US government's definition of black in minuet

The government is still basing this off the one drop rule
It forces people to make a choice of identifying with one race which is wrong

To try to break up her ancestry like that isn't accurate and do you have a source for the manner of which you broke down her genealogy? This is a common problem with people with African American ancestry and I'm not going to support the ignorance because it is wrong. Only using the Native American descent category is insulting to me because she is a singer of native blood no matter what way you look at it. She may or may not have cultural ties to her native heritage (most people mixed with Native American don't have cultural ties) not because they don't care but because they were not raised near or on a reservation or tribal lands. I see it as taking away the diversity and supporting negatively enforced racial laws that were used to segregate and demean people's pride. She is by right of native blood no matter how much she has and therefore as the categories are defined she applies to the categories.Mcelite (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am from England and have never heard of this one drop stuff, but here goes, would you support adding anyone to these cats that you have created if you could find a weak citation that says they had one drop of this Indian blood, sorry but I find that an excessive position. Under the circumstances the single cat Americans of Native American descent is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is the end of the discussion, imo there is no support for Mcelite's position and the excessive categorization and they should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I've been super busy. The one drop rule was a rule that was created basically stating the a person with any African blood from an ancestor is to be classified soley as black/African American. The rule was a racially motivated law that was made to prevent people who are part European American from gaining economic status and to decline the Native American population. In other words having one African or African American ancestor would exclude you from being able to claim any other ethnic heritage even if one of your parents has no African American descent. It's an adaptation of the Indian Blood laws that were created so that people of partial native heritage were considered less native. That's why I'm so against the removal of the categories because the action would be a shadow of the one drop rule. Also the fact that is should not matter how recent or how many native ancestors she has. The categories specifically state people of full or partial heritage whether they have cultural ties or not.Mcelite (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked and couldn't see any conditions to the cats, but anyway it should state something there to say that a certain level of ancestry should be reached, or if the subject has self declared association to the race, in the situation Beyonce doesn't meet either of these qualifications. This case seems to be the one drop rule in reverse, saying that Beyonce is a Native American actor with only having this tentative link and very limited ancestry is a imo a step to far. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Mcelite, Beyonce is American. That why I posted that information from the U.S. Census Bureau. They were support for my position. Those laws actually doesn't force anyone to identity with any race; those are the U.S. government's legal standards. People can self-identify however they choose to.

Here's another quote from Beyonce:

"I grew up upper-class. Private school. My dad had a Jaguar. We’re African-American and we work together as a family, so people assume we’re like the Jacksons. But I didn’t have parents using me to get out of a bad situation." [3]

Just more points to back up my position here. That was from the December issue of Elle Magazine. Here is the entire interview if anyone would like to read it. [4]. Regarding your concern Mcelite about the break down of Beyonce's heritage, what exactly isn't accurate? My sources are the source used in the article and an interview with Beyonce from the the Tyra Banks Show. Beyonce's father is African American, and have you seen Beyonce's mother's, Tina's, mother? She was a French American Creole woman. And since Tina is also part African American and Native American, that means Beyonce contains a minority of Native American ancestry, and a high majority of African American. It's all virtually correct. And why exactly do you think a point of the one drop rule was to reduce the Native American population? There is only speculation as to why the one drop rule was implemented, and I have never heard that one. You're wrapped with Native American this and that to even think that the one drop rule was part of a scheme to reduce the numbers of Native Americans. This notion is reinforced by the fact that you don't insist on adding French categories to this article. You only care about these Native American categories. That indicates bias as well. In the context of that point, it's worth pointing out that 90% of your edits have to do with Native American this or that. Those Native American categories only state the they're for people of full or partial heritage because you put that text in there, so it's not actually legit. It actually should be taken out. Anyway, Beyonce is part French, so there is a French descent category in the article. She is also a much smaller part Native American, so there should be a Native American descent category, just like the French category, not all these Native American singers, models, actresses, etc. categories that you insist on.

So I have nothing more to say on this matter. I've put forth my position and reasons, and so has everyone else by now who cares to get involved (Off2riorob and Mcelite). We should wait until Off2riorob posts again to see if their position is still the same before coming to a conclusion here. Surelyhuman (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

After discussion I am of the same opinion that these cats are excessive and that American of native American decent is fine. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if some other french categories were applied if that's what you are asking. How's is it that the cats are extensive when there are also several African American categories as well. Also the reason it appears that most of my edits are to people with native ancestry is because they were disturbed in what ever way. I also watch all the felidae articles. If an article hasn't been bothered than I don't bother it unless new infomation comes up. It bothers me that you make it seem that Native American is exclusive and yes the one drop rule states anyone with one drop of black blood is all black that applies to people with native heritage as well. That's why so many people who are of that admixture mostly claim black not because the ancestor wasn't recent but because of pressures from American society. That's what I see here and that's why I'm against it whether it be any of her ethnic categories being removed. She's multiracial that's fact and she has done what many people is claim the heritage she will receive less questions about claiming. She could have lied and said she's African American, Japanese, and Cambodian and people would have excepted it but mentioning Native American there's the assumption that there is little there and that she's shouldn't even bother to claim it. That's what I see you saying Surelyhuman. I maybe wrong.Mcelite (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a One-drop rule article for people to read more on that. I am not sure what to state on this matter of improper ethnicity categories for Beyoncé Knowles. I will state that a person not identifying his or herself as a particular ethnicity usually does not stop us from categorizing that person's ethnicity when it is obvious or is backed up by reliable sources. For example, Tiger Woods does not ever identify as simply African American (and he is not simply African American), but he is still mostly categorized as that by the media and general public. On the other hand, ethnicity-wise, Beyoncé only identifies as African American; because she is considered to be African American by the majority of people and considers herself African American, there may not be much we can do to significantly categorize her ethnicity as anything else. Her Native American heritage is at least noted in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the situation is noted in the article and that is good, the excessive cats need to go. There has only been one editor that actually supports these cats and that person created the cats, it is time to remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to let Native American models be removed but I also agree that just because she hasn't publicly identified strongly with her Native American heritage that doesn't mean that it is minor to her. That doesn't give a go for the others to be removed she is a singer of Native heritage that's fact.Mcelite (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you bother us to discuss it, did you see anybody else supporting your position? Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote (Mcelite): "She could have lied and said she's African American, Japanese, and Cambodian and people would have excepted it but mentioning Native American there's the assumption that there is little there and that she's shouldn't even bother to claim it. That's what I see you saying Surelyhuman. I maybe wrong." Yes Mcelite, that's a very mistaken notion there. I'm not saying that or anything like that at all. Surelyhuman (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce should not be described here on wiki as a native American singer it is wrong and I am sure she would agree with that. Has anyone else seen her described as that anywhere else? No , it requires removing and Mcelite should accept this. Off2riorob (talk)

I agree with Flyer22's rationale. A subject doesn't have to declare they are of _____ decent to be categorized as such. As long as the category is supported by the content (and the content is sufficiently sourced), that's good enough. I'm not sure I entirely agree with categorizing Beyonce as a Native American singer though. She's currently categorized as an American of Native American decent. I think that fits perfectly really. I think it's a slippery slope when we start attempting to chronicle every race/ethnicity/nationality/whatever a subject is. This seems to be a huge issue with African American subjects for some odd reason, but that's another discussion entirely. Pinkadelica ^♣ 06:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading through this whole thread, I support the inclusion of the Americans of Native American descent category and the omission of all other Native American X categories. Moreover, it seems that this is the judgement of all participating users except for Mcelite, so I suppose I will implement it tomorrow. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 6 categories for African American and 5 for Native American for which see applies. Since she is of partial heritage with both African American and Native American and French. Why is it a big deal for the Native American categories?? Just because she doesn't scream up and down I'm also Native American doesn't mean that she doesn't care or relate as a person of native heritage. I'm sorry but that's bull too me. I don't see the neutrality in it at all. If she said in an interview as a women of french descent and not mention the other ethnicities of her background does that mean that we start removing the other categories as well? This is wrong.Mcelite (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, restoring the categories when there's a clear consensus to remove them probably isn't the best of ideas. I suggest taking the next step in dispute resolution if you disagree instead of pushing in categories that others editors have already decided don't quite fit in the article. You're entitled to disagree, but to dismiss consensus goes against collegial editing. Pinkadelica ^♣ 06:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I have removed them again, there is a clear and prolonged talkpage discussion and consensus that these four cats are excessive, and Mcelites replacing them with an edit summary of.. restored 4 cats per talk page discussion is totally misleading. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, yeah...correct me if I'm wrong, but Mcelite is the only editor supporting their inclusion, yes? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Has Beyonce ever reported to have any Native American ancestry? Only because she is of Louisiana Creole descent from her mother's side it does not mean she is part Native American. The Creoles come from different ancestries, which may or may not include Native American. I remember I once found a website showing Beyonce's ancestors (I don't know if it was for real) but all her ancestors there were reported as Blacks, others as Mulattoes, I did not see any Native American there. Opinoso (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My arguement is I do not see the neutrality when there are six categories pertaining to her African American heritage. There were 5 pertaining to her native heritage so how is it that it is not excessive for the African American categories but it is excessive for the Native American categories. Also to Opinoso mulattos also meant Native American and White as well as African American and White. Also Native Americans on the east coast were unfortnately classified as mulattos because European Americans didn't believe any full blood natives were near the American cities.Mcelite (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

She's identifies and is an African American woman, of course she's going to be categorized as such. If she were half Native American, I might very well support the inclusion of her being categorized as a Native American singer, model, whatever, but considering she is only of Native American descent, the categories simply don't make sense. We don't categorize an American singer who has a German great grandmother as a German singer and the same logic applies in this case. Pinkadelica ^♣ 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. In 2000 Mariah Carey was given Female Artist of the Decade Award.Do you research. Beyonce is the female artist of our decade, she got an AWARD FOR IT if you would take time to open billboard magazine and read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insignastar1 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC) yea she is the female artist of the decade so shut up. And she has been called the female Michael Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insignastar1 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

MOVIE

Beyonce also starred as Foxy Cleopatra in "Austin Powers in Goldmember" in 2002. That should be added to the first section. I guess this article is semi-locked because of all of the crazy fanatics. People, calm down; she's just a celebrity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.111.144 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

This section is quite reasonable, as it simply states the facts and is sourced. The celebrity in question participated in an event that attracted some negative media attention. This is noteworthy as the article is meant to track the life and times of the person in question, even when the events themselves may be not seen in a favourable light. Considering that other celebrities have their setbacks (eg. addiction to alcohol; drugs; legal offences) charted on Wikipedia, this one should be no different. Again it is not written in a negative fashion, but simply states what happened and showed the reaction by media outlets. Asgardian (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Should that info have its own section? Kinda too short. Why not merge? --Efe (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Beyonce attracted criticism for accepting a large fee to perform on New Year's Eve 2009 on the Carribean island of St. Barts. The host and guest of honour was Hannibal Gaddafi, the son of Muammar al-Gaddafi (better known as "Colonel Gaddafi"). In August 2003, the Libya government, at Muammar al-Gaddafi's direction, wrote to the United Nations formally accepting 'responsibility for the actions of its officials' in respect of the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay compensation of up to US$2.7 billion – or up to US$10 million each – to the families of the 270 victims. A number of press articles highlighted the fact the celebrity was associating with the family of a known terrorist.[175][176][177]

Having a citation for some content does not make it a worthwhile addition to an article, this is coatracking something on to Beyonce as though it has something to do with her, which it hasn't. Its like saying....Beyonce has a friend that is a devil worshiper who drinks the warm blood of freshly killed goats... you see..it is nothing to do with Beyonce. Think about it like this would you add this content to the Lockerbie bombing article? no you wouldn't, would you add it to the Colonel Gadaffi article? no you wouldn't .. and yet you want to add them here? Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are a fan of the celebrity in question and have taken it upon yourself to ensure there is nothing negative printed in the article. Admirable, but unfortunately this is Wikipedia, and as such there can be no bias.

The celebrity was the main attraction at an event funded by a family associated with terrorism. This then attracted controversy in the news. This is fact and noteworthy, as it represents a moment in the celebrity's career. Whether it is positrive or negative is actually neither here nor there. Go take a look at the "Personal Life and Relationships" for Prince Harry or Mel Gibson. Everything a celebrity says/does/participates etc goes under the microscope. The information presented here is sourced no less than three times. It all happened and the celebrity participated. The news articles state Beyonce was the lead attraction and so on. Hence the inclusion of the new section.

Asgardian (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a fan, am a simple editor, its coatracking, please don't put it back ask fpr a request fpr comment here and get an outside opinion, I tell you now though the bombing and the payments has no place here. All of this is coatracking and nothing at all to do with Beyonce In August 2003, the Libya government, at Muammar al-Gaddafi's direction, wrote to the United Nations formally accepting responsibility for the actions of its officials' in respect of the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay compensation of up to US$2.7 billion – or up to US$10 million each – to the families of the 270 victims pure and simple coatracking and I would say belongs on another page except it already is on another article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC) As I dispute its addition, ask for a WP:RFC to get a independent opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have written the story in a neutral way, section titles of controversy are also to be avoided. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if not a fan, your actions in the Edit Summary would seem to smack of ownership. That said, accepting that this is legitimate information is a good first step. I have retained the original wording as the second version is not well written, and attempts to be factual where unclear (eg. the fee varies in two articles) and provides unnecessary information (the other celebrities are irrelevant - the focus is Beyonce). As to the sentence in dispute it is fine as it provides necessary context and shows why Beyonce attracted criticism. Asgardian (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left a warning on this users talkpage, the addition they are inserting is coatracking and violates BLP, please do not replace it, ask for a WP:RFC and see if there is support for your addition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Posted on the above user's Talk Page:

I strongly suggest you seek another opinion. You initially did not wish to accept the new information, and then when I presented examples in other articles conceded the point.

You then rewrote the information, but unfortunately it was poorly worded and did not focus on the relevant detail. Throughout you have also made allegations of "coatracking" but have failed to provided an explanation for this (is this a Wiki term?) and from what I can see have taken ownership of the article.

Please note the information meets all three of these criteria:

and was submitted in good faith. Note that Wikipedia's principle of "Assuming Good Faith" (often abbreviated AGF), which has been a stated guideline since 2005 has been described as "the first principle in the Wikipedia etiquette". ([5])

Finally, you have made a rather emotive and completely unnecessary claim that I will be blocked over the simple fact that one editor - yourself - disagrees. I have made every effort to explain the situation to you on the Talk Page. I suggest you try and contact another party fo comment rather than issuing ultimatums.

What I will do is drop the "Controversy" lead and insert some brackets to keep things even more correct. That said, the second version with the poor language and incorrect focus is not appropriate.

Asgardian (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The best thing you cn do is not to touch it again and to ask for outside opinion for you disputed addition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no one disputes it but you, and your version is still poorly written. Asgardian (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of collaboration, I have altered the text. Please note this version has no spelling errors; has the correct punctuation; correct links and clearly allows the reader to see the cause and effect with three sources. Also note there is just a mention of a "fee" as the amount varies from article to article. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I've never edited this article that I can recall. Looking through the edit history, the sources and this discussion, it is clear that Asgardian is correct on all counts. Numerous BLP articles have "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections, and when properly sourced and written, as this one's is, they are perfectly appropriate. This is not coatracking. Coatracking refers to material that that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but only as superficial cover for a tangentially related subject that is written in a clearly biased manner. The material in question does not do this. It reports the relevant material, with the same weight afforded to the elements on which its three sources did, without any wording that conveys a bias on the part of the article or the person who rewrote it. And yes, it is a far improvement over the passage's previous version, in terms of writing quality, as that prior version not only focused on trivial facts irrelevant to the reason why it made the news (how long her set was, who else was in the audience), but was written with grammatically incorrect run-on sentences, and arbitrary spaces between words and punctuation. This one isn't even close. Nightscream (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting but I would rather someone replied who does not know Asgardian and edits in the same field as him, I am loking for a reply from someone wjho is independant of both of the editors involved, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Nightscream usually disagrees with Asgardian, and often feels that he is guilty of WP:OWN, so if Nightscream is in full agreement with Asgardian about something that's not insignificant. ;) (As for the issue at hand, I have no opinion.) BOZ (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for an opinion from a person that is not connected to either editor and perhaps someone experienced in comments as regards policy, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to cherry pick which editor comments in a discussion, nor do you have any basis for asserting that I have no experience regarding policy, as I have plenty. My previous encounters with Asgardian are also irrelevant, as they have mostly been contentious, so if anyone would assume a bias on my part, they'd probably assume that I had one against him. In fact, I do not harbor one for or against him, since my statements are indeed based on policy, and in this particular case, Asgardian is correct. I explained to you above why your assertion of coatracking did not meet the criteria explained on that policy page, as well as other points, such as the fact that who was in the audience is not relevant to that section. By contrast, you have not referenced a policy or guideline that states that sections titled "Controversy" should be avoided. If you can refute any of these points, then by all means, please do so. Although Third Opinion is generally for disputes between two editors, hopefully requesting here will be acceptable, so I'll put in a request since you insist on another editor. Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I've read through the discussions and various versions. I feel the current version still puts wp:Undue weight on the incident. Asgardian's version is even worse, and may border on wp:coatracking. A google news search on the event in question returns only a handful of articles, which is several orders of magnitude fewer articles then a search on Beyonce herself. Imho, this event deserves at most a sentance or two. It does not deserve its own section, and certainly does not deserve its own top-line section. Something along the lines of Beyonce attracted some criticism for accepting a large fee to perform at a party hosted by Moatessem-Billah, the son of Muammar al-Gaddafi. Billah was also the gust of honor at the party, which was on New Year's Eve 2009 on the Carribean island of St. Barts.. It could a paragraph in the "image" section —Work permit (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

more on her personal beliefs, perhaps?

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/news/BootyShaking_Believer/27493/p1/ Chensiyuan (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments

Another user has been adding what I consider to be coatracking of terrorism detail that is nothing to do with Knowles, creating what imo is a BLP issue, what has the lockerbie bombing details actually got to d with Knowles? She simply did a one hour concert for the son of a person who was in the past involved with terrorism, adding all these details about the lockerbie bombing here is coatracking detail that has nothing to do with beyonce. The lockerbie bombing comments are also not in any of the reports about the party, the citations containing them are independant of the reports about the party. There is a dispute about this inclusion, there are two versions,

New Years Party 2009 version one

Beyonce attracted criticism for accepting a large fee to perform on New Year's Eve 2009 on the Carribean island of St. Barts. The host and guest of honour was Moatessem-Billah, the son of Muammar al-Gaddafi, better known as "Colonel Gaddafi". The controversy was due to the fact that in August 2003, the Libya government, at Colonel Gaddafi's direction, wrote to the United Nations formally accepting 'responsibility for the actions of its officials' in respect of the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay compensation of up to US$2.7 billion – or up to US$10 million each – to the families of the 270 victims).[6][7] A number of press articles highlighted the fact the celebrity was associating with the family of a known terrorist.[8] [9][10]

New Years Party 2009 version two

On New Year's Eve 2009 Knowles was the star attraction at a party on the Caribbean Island of St Barts for Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi 's son Moatessem-Billah at the exclusive Nikki Beach Club. She reportedly was paid £1.2million for the performance. Knowles preformed an hour long set, her husband Jay-Z was among the small audience which also included, rock star Jon Bon Jovi, hip-hop singer Usher and actress Lindsay Lohan . There was a degree of criticism in the press regarding whether or not Knowles should have done the show considering Colonel Gaddafi's previous links to terrorism, specifically the 1988 Lockerbie bombing . [11] [12]

New Years Party 2009 version three

On New Year's Eve 2009 Knowles performed at a party on the Caribbean Island of St Barts for Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi 's son Moatessem-Billah at the exclusive Nikki Beach Club. There was a degree of criticism in the press regarding whether or not Knowles should have appeared considering Colonel Gaddafi's previous links to terrorism. [13]

Comment section

Please comment in this section. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that version one definitely coatracks unnecessary detail into the article. Version two is more appropriate. I think it might be acceptable to mention the Lockerbie bombing (only mention it, without details), since one of the references does mention it as well (perhaps just adding ("specifically the 1988 Lockerbie bombing" to the end of version two.) Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sxeptomaniac; while one of the sources does mention Lockerbie, and this could therefore be mentioned in the article, in general the first version coatracks unnecessary detail into the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've have resolved the issue and removed the mention of compensation. The remainder is appropriate and also Wiki-accurate. The second version falls down on the unnecessary detail (mention of other guests) and poor grammar. "Beyonce attracted criticism" and "The controversy was due to the fact..." are stronger leads. We should always try to be both clear and concise. Asgardian (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is resolved without your alterations, that is what RFC is for, controversy is also a loaded header, if you feel strongly about the locerbie bombing why not go there and edit, coatracking it here is bad form. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The issue is not resolved. There is still the matter of the poor writing and unnecessary focus on irrelevant issues.

2. Another editor supported the "Controversy" header as that is what the matter was: controversial. In the spirit of collaboraton I removed the additional information that can be sourced by using the link. All that remains is to deal with Point 1, which I have.

2. It is not for you to tell anyone where they should edit. Again, Wikipedia requires editors show good faith - something you have yet to do. Your actions also still smack of ownership.

Please consider this. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - please don't make emotive comments in Edit Summaries. It is bad faith and simply immature, much like threats of having editors banned because of a minor disagreement. Asgardian (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that you personally threaten other editors all the time, including User:Tenebrae for just a "minor disagreement", that claim doesn't hold much weight or sincerity. Dave (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sxeptomaniac, Jayjg and Of2riorob. --JN 466 11:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a look at your Talk Page speaks volumes as you would appear to be warring with most everyone over Biographies. This is unnecessary, and certainly avoidable here. It is simply a matter of language. Please study the changes made and the comments above. Again, consider what the real focus is, and note the compromises made. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've compromised further and removed the header. Again, please note the focus is Beyonce and the statement as to why she attracted controversy, not who else was present. Asgardian (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel both versions put wp:Undue weight on the incident. Version one is worse, and ~~may border on~~ is wp:coatracking. A google news search on the event in question returns only a handful of articles, which is several orders of magnitude fewer articles then a search on Beyonce herself. The event does not deserve its own section, and certainly does not deserve its own top-line section. It deserves a passing comment, a sentence or two in another section. Something along the lines of Beyonce attracted some criticism for accepting a large fee to perform at a party hosted by Moatessem-Billah, the son of Muammar al-Gaddafi. Billah was also the gust of honor at the party, which was on New Year's Eve 2009 on the Caribbean island of St. Barts.. It could a paragraph in the "image" section.--Work permit (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose shorter version three to address the above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- It could fit well in the image section, actually imo it is not notable at all and will not be remembered by anyone, I wrote my version in an attempt to keep the coatracking out, if you want to move it and reduce it I support that also. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Version three, also suggest it be placed in the image section as the last paragraph, after the "Lary King" one.--Work permit (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Version three - and not in its own section. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Version three- replaced in the image section . Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Thank you all for your valuable comments. If there is substantial dissension, will change as appropriate.--Work permit (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Random comment by an anon IP with a history of vandalism

The RIAA never listed her as the Beyonc selling artist of the decade. That needs to be removed. She is just the most certified artist which isn't really anything.

Sony never confirmed that her sales with DC are over 100M, that needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.125.18 (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Best OVERALL Selling Artist of the Decade??

Why does is say that on the intro of the page?? The RIAA never confirmed this and we all know that it isn't true.

Example: DIL (Her 1st album) Gold=1, Platinum=2, 2x Platinum=3, 3x Platinum=4, 4x Platinum=5, overall 5 of the 64 ceritifations. That's how the RIAA did the list. They ceritifed all her material from Albums, Singles, DVD's, Ringtones, etc.... Either way, it shouldn't be on the main page because we all know her certifications. If that's the case, we might as well include her Box Office totals aswell.

http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=C91C40E1-A65A-0F81-EBB3-8FE3B7C0ECEA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valamc (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the signature should be in the article, it is unverified and could even have issues with fraud and such like, are there any editors that object to its removal? I have seen another discussion about such a signature and the consensus then was to remove, comments? Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Total Sales

Beyonce has NOT sold 100 million albums worldwide including Destinys Child. It says it the article about DC that they sold 50 million albums, that would mean that Beyonce sold 50 million solo, which she didn't or there is no reference for it because for her first album the articles on here say she sold 11 million, second 6 million and the third 6.5 million that totals = 23.5million solo, so including DC Beyonce sold 73.5 million copies, this should be the total, unless proven otherwise!Colette89 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

combined sales from other sources

The total album sales should only include album sales,NOT DVD sales, ringtones, it should be counted separately because it becomes confusing and almost like cheating because album sales should only include albums and i found that the 100 million total includes all of these things including DC and i know it makes the artist look better, but lets be honest and keep it realYou should note that the total icludes singles sales, DVD sales etcColette89 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Some seriously needs to edit some of the things in ths page, SHOW me where the RIAA confirmed that she was the best selling overall artist of the decade because that's bull. If anyone paid attention to the RIAA decade review, half of her ceritifications came from DVD and Ringtones. Someone really needs to check this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowlove22 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Most Successful Female Artist??

Billboard did NOT say that, the article states that she was female artist of the DECADE due to her being the highest ranked female based on points.

I don't know if folks were misleaded by the riaa updated certifications list but that's not true. Half of her certifications came from dvd's and ringtones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowlove22 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Move (March 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

No consensus for move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé — WP:COMMONNAME. She is almost never referred to as "Beyoncé Knowles" and since Beyonce and Beyoncé redirect here, there is no prospect for confusion. Note that several articles and subcategories in Category:Beyoncé Knowles would be affected as well, including the category itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

oppose - no one is getting lost here, we have the redirects from beyonce already, this suggestion has no benefits at all. The same could be said about Obama.Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Off2riorob and WP:BROKE. Now, Cher: that's somebody who never gets her last name used. But Beyoncé Knowles is still the best name for this article. Respectfully, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Support obvious WP:COMMONNAME. Beyoncé is almost always called Beyoncé. Not at all comparable to Barack Obama, most reliable sources refer to him as Barack Obama or President Obama before using his surname. 90.217.146.72 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
— 90.217.146.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Oppose Her last name is quite well-known and publicized, and nom has not provided any evidence to support the claim to the contrary. IMO supporting current marketing efforts (if indeed that is the case) is not one of Wikipedia's mandates. What's funny is that a guideline specifically uses Ms. Knowles as an example of when one should include WP:LASTNAME. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ha! Good point! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose FWIW, "Beyoncé Knowles" currently gets 6.8million GHits, a bit less than half the total for Beyoncé. StAnselm (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose There are other people with this name, and I oppose a monopoly of this name, especially for marketing purposes. -- S Masters (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

References need an update

Some of the references link to videos that are no longer available, and articles that have been moved. They need an update... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycherk03 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Number ones total

I have changed her total #1's with Destiny's Child from three to four. Their four #1's as listed in their discography are Bills, Bills, Bills (1999), Say My Name (2000), Independent Women (2000), and Bootylicious (2001). Jdot01 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I was wondering what they were. Thanks for communicating your thinking.

(Moving new discussion down to maintain chronological order of Talk page.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Judicious voice...?

'Eye Weekly writes, "There’s no question that Beyonce is one of the best singers in pop, maybe one of the best alive...[However] as judicious as her singing can be, the effect in sum is still like being hit in the head with a fist in a velvet glove."'

Just what is 'judicious' singing? Wondering if perhaps we only want non-pseudointellectual quotations that make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locuteh (talk • contribs) 11:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that it does not make sense because you do not understand it ? Dylan (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't makes sense to me, either. What does it mean for one's singing to be "judicious"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Swimsuit Issue Boxes

Shouldn't she have at the bottom of her page the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue template boxes? Both the "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models" and the "2000–2009 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue" ones? She was in them so why not, it doesn't metter why she was in it she still got the cover and was inside the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.86.197.25 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Madonna influence??

Beyonce has always listed Janet Jackson as one of her major influences, not Madonna. Their are several footage and quotes from her where she always mentioned Janet Jackson . In the article, it never mentions Madonna as her major inspiration. It only mentioned MJ.

She has said that Madonna is a major influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlo159 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiatus?

Why is there a heading with "Hiatus" in it. She's not on hiatus, and there is nothing mentioned about hiatus in the topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.152.148.234 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 2ne14ever, 26 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

2ne14ever (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to actually make a request.—Kww(talk) 12:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Just noting that people that are listed in the infoxbox as an associated act probably should be removed according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Associated_ guidelines.

A relevant addition would be Destiny's Child as Knowles was a member of Destiny's Child. Another should be Solange Knowles because she has wrote three of Knowles song's "Upgrade U", "Get Me Bodied" and "Why Don't You Love Me" and is also her sister. Jay-Z should definitely stay as he has collaberated with Knowles on several songs and is her husband & last her tour band Suga Mama as she's been working with them for several of years. That is all that needs to be their. I hope you's all understand now.

Just putting it out their for discussion for regular editors on this article to comment on. :)

Ozurbanmusic (talk)

Do not revert my edits to the article. The guideline states,

The following uses of this field should be avoided:
- Groups that are merely similar

In other words, Sean Garrett and The-Dream and her manager and Rodney Jerkins are not supposed to be included. Orane (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

yep i agree now, thanks! ozurbanmusic (talk)

Requested move (July 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus to move page at this time, per discussion below. This one is close, but there's not a strong enough consensus here to move the page. - GTBacchus^(talk) 17:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé — Obvious case of WP:COMMONNAME. Note that this requested move also applies to Beyoncé Knowles discography and any article ending with "(Beyoncé Knowles song)"; frankly, I'm too lazy to fill out the move-multi template for that many articles. I'm aware that a move request was made not too long ago in March, but I still have some points to make that I don't think were addressed.

Firstly, I think it's fair to say that Knowles is more well-known for her musical than dramatic endeavors; as far as I know, she only uses her legal name when acting. Musically, she is known by the mononym. Secondly, let's take a look at ghits (all numbers are by the millions). Compare 1.35 and 5.02 for "beyoncé knowles" and "beyonce knowles" (both without quotes), respectively, to "beyoncé" and "beyonce"'s respective 13.2 and 43.7.

A concern was raised at the last move request that Knowles is not the only person with the name Beyoncé. That being said, she is the only person well known by that singular name and wiki does not have any articles on others with the same forename. If any are created, dablinks can easily be added to the top of this article as Knowles would almost certainly be the primary topic. |Relisting billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |–Chase (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And re:this comment from the last move req: "What's funny is that a guideline specifically uses Ms. Knowles as an example of when one should include WP:LASTNAME." LASTNAME is actually about subsequent uses of last names in an article, not what an article should be titled. Therefore, everything referring to Knowles after the first sentence would remain "Knowles". –Chase (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. My sense is that this still doesn't rise to the level of the ur-examples, Madonna and Cher. Powers ^T 15:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think so? The ghits say a lot... –Chase (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed they do; compare Beyonce's ratio to those for "Madonna Ciccone" and "Cherilyn Sarkisian". =) (The tricky part, of course, being that all three mononyms can refer to other things besides the artists, especially "Madonna".) Powers ^T 19:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  - In the case of Cher, Cher (disambiguation) exists to avoid confusion and the Madonna article itself is disambiguated with "(entertainer)". Ms. Knowles is at this point, the only notable subject on wiki with the name Beyoncé (hence why that currently redirects here). –Chase (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    - Additionally, Cher and Madonna have greater mononym to real name ratios because they almost always use their mononyms professionally. Knowles often uses her legal name when acting but the ghits still show that she is far more well-known simply as Beyoncé. –Chase (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
      - The fact that Knowles often uses her legal name is sufficient in my book to keep the article at its current title. Powers ^T 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
        What she is occasionally known as is ruled out by what she is more well known as, per WP:COMMONNAME. –Chase (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
        Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) says "Similarly, don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used." I believe Beyonce still falls into that category. Powers ^T 12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    - I certainly don't dispute that this article is the primary topic for Beyonce. Powers ^T 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Beyonce was known as Beyonce Knowles for a long time, unlike Madonna and Cher. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Key word: was. We go with what she is more well-known as per WP:COMMONNAME and Google shows that Beyoncé alone is far more common. –Chase (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- No it's not a key word. She is known as BK for a long time is not proper English. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  - What I mean is that she was well known as Beyoncé Knowles back in the Destiny's Child days and currently occasionally in her film roles. She is more well known as Beyoncé now. –Chase (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    - 50 Cent goes by his birth name Curtis Jackson when he appears in movies, does that mean that we should move "50 Cent" to "Curtis Jackson"? Beyoncé is far more well-known under her mononym than she is under her full name. Her albums are officially released under her first name only, news articles mainly refer to her as just "Beyoncé" and not "Beyoncé Knowles". Even her official website refers to her by her first name only http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/home . 24.189.87.160 (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Support As above, she is overwhelmingly known simply as Beyoncé. I wasn't even aware of her surname before reading this article. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 00:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Beyoncé is also known as B. Knowles in her work on the films, credits of her songs, and some music videos. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Songwriting credits should not be taken into consideration, since any songwriter with a stage name will be credited with their legal name. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
May I ask which music videos? And as the IP above me said, most songwriters are generally credited with their legal names. –Chase (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The most recent is one, and I think that this is the only, at least in the screen. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Beyoncé is the common name and she is the primary topic. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
she is not overwealmingly known as beyoncé, she has however over the years been referred to simply as beyoncé increasingly but not enough to cut her last name out, either way its really not that big of a deal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Google - she is far more well known just as Beyoncé than as Beyoncé Knowles. –Chase (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Edit request from 129.81.131.219, 27 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Beyoncé appears on the cover of sociologist Shayne Lee’s provocative new book Erotic Revolutionaries: Black women, Sexuality, and Popular Culture. Lee presents Beyoncé as one of many black female celebrities who act as feminists of sorts, affording women access to cultural tools to renegotiate their erotic identity and celebrate sexual agency and empowerment.

129.81.131.219 (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Denied Need to see a source for the cover, a source for the description of the book, and multiple sources showing that the book is notable.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Melinda1991, 27 July 2010

Beyoncé appears on the cover of sociologist Shayne Lee’s provocative new book Erotic Revolutionaries: Black women, Sexuality, and Popular Culture. Lee presents Beyoncé as one of many black female celebrities who act as feminists of sorts, affording women access to cultural tools to renegotiate their erotic identity and celebrate sexual agency and empowerment.

Melinda1991 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Per above Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nigerian ancestry

Beyonce is of Nigerian descent, she says so in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGSQH51bN-Y she says that her ancestors are from Nigeria and sings their national anthem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Influence and Legacy

You need to put this in her legacy: (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/08/prweb4360434.htm)

Beyoncé is the most persuasive and influential celebrity in the world, according to Staffordshire University Professor Ellis Cashmore. “Not only does she sell downloads, cds, ringtones, movie tickets, her own label clothes and any number of products, from cologne to television, but she sells a new American Dream based on an idea – that racism is over,” says Cashmore. In his new article ‘Buying Beyoncé’, Professor Cashmore argues that Beyoncé’s most notable feat is in selling the idea that America’s centuries-old problem of racism has vanished. “When she serenaded the US President Barack Obama and his wife at their inauguration ball in January 2009, she achieved the unimaginable,” says Cashmore. “Here was a conspicuously successful black women singing to the first black president in history.”Cashmore, Professor of Culture, Media and Sport at Staffordshire University, believes Beyoncé is a symbol for a new age, though, he adds, a misleading one: “Despite the progress of the past few decades, the USA is still mired in its past. African Americans do poorly at school, live in the poorest housing, spend a disproportionate amount of time behind bars and, despite the election of Obama, are underrepresented politically compared to their size in the total population – more than 1 in 7 Americans are black.” In his article, which is published in the latest issue of Celebrity Studies, Cashmore documents the overall social position of African Americans and contrasts this with the position of Beyoncé and other A-list black celebrities, such as her husband Jay-Z, Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Alicia Keys. “Their success can be interpreted by middle America as evidence that, in the land of opportunity, you can emerge from an impoverished background and live the good life.” Professor Cashmore can be seen discussing the article on youtube Cashmore adds: “It’s easy to imagine how Americans think to themselves, ‘If these billionaire celebrities can make it, why can’t any other black person in America. After all, racial discrimination didn’t stop them. It’s a deceptive illusion.” Cashmore, whose books include Tyson: Nurture of the Beast and Celebrity Culture believes Beyoncé is a perfect emblem for the Age of Obama. “In a sense she is unique,” he says. Her earnings and her influence make her the most globally conspicuously successful black woman this side of Oprah, and, remember, she isn’t 29 till September.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.205.12 (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

InfoBox picture

Wow.. possibly the most unflattering photo I have see of Beyonce. And the close-up of cleavage in the back ground... for the infobox? --MarsRover (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MarsRover, but the image in the infobox has to be a recent one. Not some image of Beyonce from back in 2007. I'll try and look for a more recent and better one of her. ozurbanmusic (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Omg I came here to say that too, nice to know someone else noticed. The photo does nothing for Beyonce and I'm sure there are a plethora of amazing pics of her to choose from and use. Dylan (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The picture has already been changed to a much more better one Dylan. This discussions closed! ozurbanmusic (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want this picture of Beyonce to be on this article.It's a nice picture but it's not strong enough to be at the top of the article. When people come to this page.They need to see her in a way that repesents all of her accomplishments.This picture does half- of that!Not 100%!K.M.D1994 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.22.20.249, 14 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can plz edit this

78.22.20.249 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mightman, 14 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a couple misspelled words

Mightman (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific as to what words are misspelt, please? Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this page is so pro-Beyonce

It's not even funny. Nary one mention on the controversy regarding her "songwriting"? Oh and before you ask, yeah I got sources [14], [15], Irreplaceable#Critical_reception, If_I_Were_a_Boy#Controversy. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jake

{{editsemiprotected}} can i edit this

Jake&beyonce (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the notice I left on your talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Beyoncé, 23 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can i edit Beyoncé Knowles

Edit request from June July, 28 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can i edit Beyoncé Knowles

Eleven june (talk) 1:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the notice I left on your talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

78.22.20.249 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. The way it works is that you specify what you would like to change in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail and someone will add it to the article for you. Please also provide reliable sources for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jackywackxd, 5 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can i edit Beyoncé Knowles

Jackywackxd (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 17:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: the requesting user has been repeatedly creating hoax articles and inserting unsourced misinformation into Beyoncé-related articles, and has been blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

2010-present: Fourth studio album

in September 2010, Songwriter-producer Sean Garrett, who’s previously teamed with Queen B for tracks like “Video Phone,” “Diva,” “Get Me Bodied,” and “Upgrade U,” says it’s true. “I am going in the studio with Beyoncé this week to work on her next record,” Garrett told the Music Mix at Sunday’s MTV Video Music Awards. “I think we are doing a lot of up-tempo records for this one. She’s in such a good place right now in life that she is interested in making party music, definitely.” A rep for Beyoncé was unable to confirm her recording plans at this time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.76.196 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 01:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already added the infomation with a ref. ozurbanmusic (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Producer Diplo are working on Beyoncé new album! "Diplo said he and Sleigh Bells checked in with Beyoncé last week. On his blog, he wrote: "me and derek and alexis are bros and sis for life. in fact i like sleigh bells so much ... me and switch was in studio in nyc tryin to make tracks with derek and beyonce last week after we played her team their album ... dunno if we gonna manage to finish but was good times." http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/01/sleigh_bells.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.116.113 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comfirmed: Beyoncé WILL headline Glastonbury Festival AND Beyoncé Is The First Woman To Headline The Glastonbury Festival! http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=112143 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.250.199 (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also from MTV an artist by the name of Sia said that she has only one mor track to go and she will be finishing up soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lake12 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please list your source/s here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Source here Ozurbanmusic (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Daleorndorf, 18 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Beyonce is the great great granddaughter of Isaac Knowles who was born in the West Indies and died in Gaylesville, AL.

Daleorndorf (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. To service your request, we need to know what text to add and where to add it, as well as some source for a factual claim like this. Can you find a source and rephrase the request in a 'please change X to Y' or 'please add X after Y' level of detail? Regards, Celestra (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nigerian

Beyonce has Nigerian Ancestry, sources that concur with this is her own words during her tour in Nigeria, she states that "I [She] knows that my [her] ancestors are from here [Nigeria] and it makes me [her] feel home" here is the link for those nay sayers. I asked for this to be embedded previously, however, clearly, someone has deleted every single discussion topic from before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Greatestnovel (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Music and voice

Under the Music and Voice section there is too much praising of her voice. The article is not balancing these comments with any comments by critics who think otherwise of her voice. Even the one comment that is meant to jokingly balance this section states she is "one of the best singers in pop, maybe one of the best alive..." THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE COMMENT MEANT TO BALANCE OUT ALL THE COMPLIMENTS! Come on, really?! There are many people who don't care that much for her voice. Although she has the range to belt and can do so, she doesn't really have a good tone to do so. And everyone doesn't like a husky voice (not raspy, which would be better, but husky). Going through catalogue albums by Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston, they're better belters and wailers than Beyonce is as their voices have a better tone, Houston in particular. This is not a knock against Beyonce as she definetely can sing, and has sold millions of albums solo and with Destiny's Child; but if other acts have a balanced statement in their articles, then really, so should she. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

130 million records

heyy beyonce 130 millons records sales with group.. but still writes 100 millons.. See the new source, a very reliable source..(music world/clombia records) please change again.. not 100 millons, she has sold over 130 millons,Please check the new source....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.70.93 (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Beyonce makes modeling debut for anticipated Tom Ford collection

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2010/12/beyonce-modeling-debut-tom-ford-.html Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jivesh. But where should it be added on the article? ozurbanmusic (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Songwriting and producing

Since Destiny's Child, Knowles is artistically involved in her career.[28] She received co-writing credits for most of the songs recorded by the group, as well as her solo efforts. Known for writing personally driven and female-empowerment themed compositions, she has stated that having Jay-Z in her life has changed a few of her thoughts about how men and women relate to one another.[121] Some of her songs are autobiographical, which she has admitted are taken from personal experiences, as well as her friends'.[122] Knowles has also received co-producing credits for most of the records in which she has been involved, especially during her solo efforts. However, she does not formulate beats herself, but typically comes up with melodies and ideas during production, sharing them with producers.[123] Knowles was recognized as a songwriter during the run of Destiny's Child in the 1990s and early to mid-2000s. She won the Pop Songwriter of the Year award at the 2001 American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers Pop Music Awards, becoming the first African-American female and second female songwriter of all time to accomplish the feat.[19][122] Knowles received three songwriting credits in a single year for co-writing "Irreplaceable", "Grillz" ("Soldier" was sampled on the song) and "Check on It", the only woman to achieve since Carole King in 1971 and Mariah Carey in 1991. In terms of credits, she is tied with Diane Warren at third with nine number-one singles.[124]

This section needs to be revamped. This section (& the whole article honestly) is so pro beyonce, so overly positive. Aren't articles suppossed to be neutral? It is well documented that Beyonce DOESNT write her songs, she buys credits so she gets royalties. She changes 1 or 2 words so that way she gets a songwriting credit. In her Destiny's Child days songwriters Kandi Burruss,Kevin Briggs, and many others wrote the groups songs. Beyonce was called the songwriter as a marketing tool. As a solo artist Rich Harrison,Ne-yo,BC Jean, and others writer her songs. This section should reflect this. 173.79.63.79 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but we go by what the sources say. ozurbanmusic (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the facts the problem is many people think she writes her own songs on the other hand this is an encyclopedia and we should be aware of that. Editing what has been written as these are not direct quotes by editing like so for example for them to adhere to the facts and not popular belief.

Known for writing personally driven and female-empowerment themed compositions

Known for choosing personally driven and female-empowerment themed compositions

Knowles was recognized as a songwriter during the run of Destiny's Child in the 1990s and early to mid-2000s

Knowles was given recognition for being the principal songwriting force behind Destiny's Child in the 1990s and early to mid-2000s

If you are a fan or not it should make no difference what the truth is when writing an encyclopedia. 92.233.71.47 (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.233.71.47, 15 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Beyoncé's signature picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beyonc%C3%A9_Assinatura.png is a autograph not her signature That should be corrected. If it were her check signing signature it's illegal to publish. Please change signature to autograph under Background information (top right of page under Beyonces picture, at the very bottom of the Background information column)92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Yes, that is a correct distinction, so I've fixed it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

From the Early Life & Career through the Destiny Child sections, the size of the group and which personnel were involved is hard to follow. I suggest listing the existing group a couple of times along the way to help anchor things for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.85.95 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/09/15/2009-09-15_beyonce_to_launch_a_signature_fragrance.html

[2] ttp://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/09/15/2009-09-15_beyonce_to_launch_a_signature_fragrance.html

[3] ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32885477/ns/business-retail/

[4] ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32885477/ns/business-retail/

[5] ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32885477/ns/business-retail/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]