Talk:Beyoncé

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Beyoncé has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.


Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014[edit]

In 2011 Beyonce was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. I think this should be in the article. Source: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/06/17/academy-invites-178-new-members/ BeKay77 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I have no real opinion on whether or not this info should be included, but on a cursory look through the wikipedia pages of all the other people named in this source, none of them mention this. Cannolis (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Highest earning Black artist[edit]

Very dubious/vague statement (not to mention untrue). I tried to find the source (Billboard) for elaboration, but could not. Maybe they mean highest grossing tour by a Black musician. This seems to be what they are referring to as her tour is the sole subject of the short/vague article. Either way something must be changed. Thoughts?--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 09:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it refers to an average of how much black artists are paid for their endeavours. But it isn't to be confused with net worth (of which several black artists exceed Beyoncé). —JennKR | 10:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014[edit]

Hi, Can you change Beyonce's occupation by deleting devil. This is extremely offensive. Thanks JessinaRizk (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Unnecessary – Already done. – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if user:Bentogoa has reverted the change. Perhaps he would care to provide a reason for this? 98.119.149.3 (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

'Censorship advocacy'[edit]

Can this be changed to something a little more impartial, e.g. the name of the campaign the section refers to, Ban Bossy? I would do it myself but it's semi-protected. Thanks 109.151.162.170 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done This doesn't warrant a sub-section anyway. —JennKR | 19:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I agree it may be an uncomfortable read, but it's the truth, I'm just summarising what I'm finding in multiple articles. Beyoncé is undeniably on record in a prominent national campaign promoting the banning of a word—that's kind of the definition of "censorship advocacy." I mean, it seemed like the clearest heading I could come up with. What would you call it? I can cite several sources calling this campaign "censorship" if needed, but I think the three I already provided outline it well. What else would it be called if not "censorship advocacy:" 'promotion', 'endorsement', something else? As for a sub-heading-considering her high visibility and her decision to lend her likeness to this type of campaign, it's a good bet many readers would probably find it noteworthy. She wants to ban a word. No matter the reason or the merits, it is what it is. I noted the anon user cited WP:NPOV when removing such terms in the linked article, but who's injecting POV? It almost feels like an attempt to WP:Sanitize. Isn' t this noteworthy and relevant to the section and the subject? It has multiple, easily verified sourcing from prominent news organizations. What else would you want to see to keep it as entered? Lexlex (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Lexlex, The idea that the campaign advocates censorship is merely your opinion, not objective fact. 109.151.162.170 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@anon, please see Censorship definition. Please suggest a term you feel is more appropriate. I was asked to characterise it this way by another editor, when expanding and interlinking this article. (e.g. it's plain-spoken, etc.) Lexlex (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Lexlex, 'Censorship' is a highly loaded term that does not apply to a campaign speaking out against hate speech in media and culture. 109.151.162.170 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@anon, I ask you to please read the definition. There is no special pass when the reason for the censorship has lofty political rationale. It's still the banning of a word which some people find objectionable—and that is censorship. Are you attempting to WP:Sanitize this? If so, why? This is fact, it's really clear, it's really well-documented and there really should be no discussion. Your quoting of the campaign literature does not address this or change the facts. Lexlex (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)