Talk:Soulja Boy

2008 Archive

Redirection

Can Somebody Fix the redirection, Souljah Boy is another rapper in the mo thugs family (Bone-Thugs-n-Harmony Collective)

Mentally retarded? Girl??

I can't edit it, so here someone should remove it... He was born mentally retarded, as a girl. [1]

Biggerboy92 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Question?

I see that when this article was initially created it was highlighted for deletion. Why isn't this still the case?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.72.40 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, but I agree, it should be marked for deletion... along with Soulja Boy himself. 96.50.183.82 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Have any of you read WP:MUSIC? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Middle Name Clarification

Soulja Boy's Middle Name is Cortez it is not Ramone He said so him self in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E9bNgWap1A Yardizel (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesnt matter any more now, the video was taken down. Yardizel (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Requested On Protected Page

An edit by User:Andrewlp1991 has been identified as vandalism. In the "Early Life" section it reads: "Soulja Boy Tell 'Em was born in Chicago, Illinois and moved to Atlanta, Georgia at age seven, on July 28, 1990."

It should say: "Soulja Boy Tell'em was born in Chicago, Illinois on July 28 1990. At age seven, he moved to Atlanta Georgia..."

The current article statement is misleading as it suggests that he moved to Atlanta, Georgia as a seven-year-old on the day that he was born. --NiceHotShower (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Woops, sorry. I didn't notice that I messed up a sentence; all I wanted to do was to correct his listed middle name. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AKA

Well, in the infobox, his "also known as" only lists "Soulja Boy". Should we also things he calls himself such as "S. Beezy", or just "Beezy"? I mean, there's obviously his own self-published YouTube videos, but I don't know if any 'news' has covered it or not. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kiss me thru the phone has peaked at #3 on the billboard 100 now.

Can't edit as page is blocked.

1. 3 spot 28th March on Billboard Hot 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davedude2040 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be included into the article, it's really funny! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8127460.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeonglow (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Surprised

Soulja Boy was 17 when he first started(i think). So how the hell he talking bout bitches hoes and asses, and he ain't even at the legal age to vote?

I don't really know about the point for this. He was about 16, unsigned (meaning he could rap about anything he wanted at any age), and he's now 18 and can legally rap about anything he wants. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One does not have to be a certain age to curse anyway. Cursing is never against any laws in teh United states and the censors do not ban curse words just because a minor uses them. If a word in banned by the FCC the age of the user is irrelevent. Howver due to freedom of Speech amendment anyone can use any language on their album that they see fit. However parental consent is a factor but most parents do not mind if a child curses at 16, given that they are so close to adulthood that they are old enough to have the discretion to use such language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.246.81 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

New Song

Heard a song on youtube called What you know. Cant add it so can someone else?? And can someone make a page for POW and The DeAndre Way? Thx.--Mpurplegirl (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete

How about dont edit this dude at all, hes garbage, all your doin is bosting his career Mcanmoocanu

This is a article for people who LIKE him. If you dont like him, why read this at all? --Mpurplegirl (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, if you have a reliable source with a critical view, feel free to input that information, properly sourced. People who don't like him are welcome here too.--Ethelh (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Because he's a retard and people hate him?

I understand your point and I hate him as well. However the purpose of Wikipedia is so that people find nuetral information on people despite their popularity and general opinion of said persons.For example in general people like Hitler and Charles Manson have reputations as cold blooded murderers but they are so notable they deserve a wikipedia page. I fyou would like to represent the viewpoint of someone critical of SOulja Boy then have a sourced article containing a negative criticism of him. Honestly, I would love it if you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.246.81 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Twitter controversy

Is anyone going to amend the page to include his recent twitter controversy. According to thugficition.com he posted several messgaes ranting about his general dislike of life after fame and he also posted several racists comments. Although this has been a low radar scandal I think it should be noted as a part of his career and it would also bring more attentnion to it(and negative attention is exactly what he deserves in my opinion.)Just wondering. If thugficiton is a trustworthy source then I can cite it and add the section myself.

I agree that this should be included. Also there should be mention of the picture he posted on twitter where he had a boner. Here is the link to a credible source that talks about his erection picture. postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212244548.shtml --Markpomer (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen "thugfiction" on any other page on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure of its credibility as a reliable source. Secondly, he went off on a Twitter rant. So? I don't see what the big deal is, many celebs to it a lot. Did it change his record deal? Did Interscope scold him for it? Did he change his entire career because of it? If none of these things (or anything of similar importance) happened, it's not very notable for Wikipedia. And what is the importance and notability of him taking a "boner picture"? Even if certain things follow the verifiability test, they may not necessarily follow the notability test. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the boner picture is notable because it gives insight into his character. I mean who would put a picture of their dick out there to the whole world. It reveals that soulja boy is not only a talentless artist but on top of that he's also a skeevy and obnoxious person. --Markpomer (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now you're looking at it through your own bias point of view and not being neutral. The reasons you listed are not very good for a neutral encyclopedia. If you wish to make these comments and accusations, please take them to a fansite, or lack thereof. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who should be going to the soulja boy fansite. Please explain how this incident is not notable. Janet Jackson's article has two paragraphs about her accidently flashing her breasts. Tommy Lee's article talks about his sex tape. If those incidents are worth noting, then how is soulja boy showing his genitalia to the whole world not notable?--Markpomer (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't go to a fansite as I do not really like this artist. Secondly, yes, those pages do cover such things based on notability. Someone, even a celebrity, showing their genitalia is not necessarily notable. Has it been covered by reliable, third party, sources? Did this event change his career, much as it did for Janet and Tommy? Not everything belongs on Wikipedia. He did not show his actual penis much like Janet, Tommy, Pamela, Kim, etc. He simply showed a photo which made it appear as if he was having an erection. This is not notable. I will ask someone to come in and evaluate a third opinion. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Response to third opinion request (dispute on whether to add a mention of things discussed on Twitter):

• There is sufficient precedent to include twitter links if the twitter feed is considered part of the BLP subject's official site. See Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_24#Twitter_proposal for examples and interpretations of EL.
• With regard to notability, a similar debate occurred over inclusion of details of John Barrowman exposing himself on radio and later on television, only the latter has been included in the long term (though it is supported with a published source). These incidents have not affected his career but can be argued to be encyclopaedic and suitable for a biographical article as they do inform as to his public persona. In this case Soulja Boy's "'Boner' Pic on Twitter" has been featured in a large number of blogs (not normally considered reliable sources) but I have been unable to find any published sources which do not fail self published sources.
• Consideration should be given to WP:NTEMP and it may be argued that this story will not be significant in the longer term. However as this BLP's notability does not rely on the notability of this single event this is less of an issue. The level of current public interest is still reasonable grounds for inclusion of a brief note of the event if a reliable source can be found.

Conclusion: If a reliable source supports a note in the article about this incident then it can be considered verifiable and notable as it adds to the description of his public persona. Currently such a source has not been proposed and so this event is not suitable for inclusion on the basis of failing the 'notability requires verifiable evidence' guidelines.

—Teahot (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the postchronicle source i provided be considered reliable? It is a credible news site and not a blog. Additionally, the story is covered by the official website for the VH1 show "Best Week Ever". I believe this can be considered verifiable and notable. http://www.bestweekever.tv/2009-07-15/guess-what-soulja-boy-is-hiding-in-his-pants/ --Markpomer (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the particular websites you mention;

1. postchronicle is currently blacklisted by Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist and content may be user contributed. In the case of the Soulja Boy Penis Photo article, this was copied directly from Dlisted.com (as linked in the article), which has the following disclaimer: "Dlisted.com contains published rumors, speculation, assumptions, opinions as well as factual information. Information on this site may or may not be true and not meant to be taken as fact. Dlisted.com makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims." Consequently this source fails WP:RS.
2. bestweekever.tv features user contributed content (the content you reference is explicitly copied from a Livejournal blog as you can see if you follow the "ONTD" link) and the Terms of Use Agreement of the site management (Social Project) states "All user content, ... made available on, accessed through or sent from the SP service ... are made available on an "as is", "as available" and "with all faults" basis, without any representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied." consequently although the site does not initially look like a blog, it still fails WP:SPS and WP:RS.

—Teahot (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the content is not copied from a livejournal blog. Best Week Ever just used the blog as a source for the picture. The rest of the article is not copied. Also I don't think the SP terms of service would apply to the article in question, because it was written by the site editor Michelle Collins and not just a random blogger. The site does feature user contributed content (what site doesn't in this day and age?), but the article about Soulja Boy was not user contributed. It was posted by the managing editor of the site. --Markpomer (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I had overlooked the fact that the text has been written by Michelle Collins, though the article does not provide any new information apart from her describing the blogged photo and speculating as to what is really in his pants. bestweekever.tv is described as an "entertainment blog" or part of the "blogosphere" when quoted by printed reliable sources (based on newspaper articles from the Washington Times, 13 January 2009 and from an interview in the Kansas City Star, 2 August 2007, where Alex Bragg, the Managing Editor of bestweekever.tv described the site as a blog). As we are discussing the inclusion of a gossip item in a biographical page, the guidance of WP:BLP#Reliable_sources has to be used when deciding what counts as a quality reliable source and a gossip based entertainment blog will fail this guidance.—Teahot (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because the site contains blogs doesn't mean the entire site is a blog. CNN and New York Times have blogs on their sites but obviously cnn.com isn't a blog. It's the official site for a popular show on VH1 and the article was written by the managing editor. Clearly bestweekever.tv is not a blog. Also, according to the reliable source guidelines "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". The best week ever source is reliable because the Michelle Collins is a professional and the article is subject to VH1's editorial control. It was written by VH1's editorial staff as a matter of fact. --Markpomer (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As the issue has strayed away from the original third opinion question about Twitter links into interpreting what the BLP guidance calls "questionable sources", I have asked for help from BLP/N for an assessment of the use of bestweekever as a source. The notice can be found at WP:BLP/N#Soulja Boy Tell 'Em.—Teahot (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I am including below a copy of the response from WP:BLP/N#Soulja Boy Tell 'Em with respect to the bestweekever source. If you wish to respond please do so on the BLP/N page. The result was a firm rejection of this source.—Teahot (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)