Talk:Soulja Boy

2008 Archive

Hip Hop?

I changed his genre from hip hop to pop rap. Who even put that down in the first place?

Redirection

Can Somebody Fix the redirection, Souljah Boy is another rapper in the mo thugs family (Bone-Thugs-n-Harmony Collective) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.92.45 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a suitable page (that I can find) to redirect to. Also, the article currently states: "On December 9, 2007, Way was sued by William Lyons (aka Souljah Boy of Mo Thugs) who claims he first created the stage name "Souljah Boy"." However, the source doesn't point to anything that mentions either "Soulja Boy", and William Lyons' (or Soulja Boy's) name doesn't appear on the Mo Thugs page anywhere. Somerandomnerd (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

It does seem to be Cortez .. I don't know who keeps changing it to Ramone. Check out these sources. [1][2][3][4] --Vishnu2011 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the four sources we have say Ramone. One of your sources is a blog (not reliable), one is an editorial, one is Google. Not sure how those can be considered reliable. The only one that seems to be reliable is E!. --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Its Associated Press, not Google. Google is just hosting it. Also Washington Post here, [5]Vishnu2011 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is, please provide the associated press article, and not the Google article. Also, please wait for consensus before changing something like this and adding numerous, unneeded hidden messages in the article. It's very cluttering. Now, there was a previous discussion (two I believe) and the consensus seemed to point to leaving it as "Ramone", as there were more reliable sources which pointed to such, as opposed to the numerous blog postings of "Cortez". I shall go to the Music WikiProject to ask for help to build consensus. Until then, please do not change the main page. --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, my apologies for changing it without settling the debate. Only way I can explain all these news sources being wrong is if they all got from one source. More sources

• Direct Associated Press link [6].
• Atlanta Journal [7]
• Henry Herald (Town Where he got arrested) [8]. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Checked out Soulja Boy's Profile on YouTube where he favorited video from CelebTV.com. In the video the "newsanchor" stated his full name as DeAndre Cortez Way. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Artist Name Clarification

His full name is actually Cortez Tell 'Em! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.100.86 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 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)

I don't think that's necessary. The Lil Wayne article does not mention the (excessive number of) nicknames that he has given himself such as "Weezy F" and the like, and I don't think it is really all that important. If it's another name he used to use (for example, when a band undergoes a name change upon releasing their first "real album") then it might be valuable, but I don't think names he makes up for himself in songs are worthwhile information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.241.149 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 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)

Where is the criticism?

My goodness, this article hardly mentions how his music is frequently panned by critics. If were going to mention his commercial success in the lead, it is only fitting to mention how his music is poorly received. Richard (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you have reliable sources? We can add them. --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• but most of his debut, Souljaboytellem.com, is a teenage wasteland filled with monotonously looped chants and agonizing blunt-force beats
• Worst album of 2007
• Soulja Boy takes rap to new lows with this 49 minute suckfest.
• second, seventh and eight lowest rated albums on Rate Your Music

Even the few decent reviews acknowledge the negative reception on him.

• Boy do the haters get busy on this 16-year-old.
• Ever since he burst onto the scene last year with his chart topping, ringtone dominating, dance floor flooding hit "Crank That", young DeAndre Way has been accused of not only single-handedly destroying hip-hop, but preventing other artists from having success of their own.

and here are articles detailing the criticism he gets.[9][10] Richard (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, one major problem with this, is that to keep NPOV, we'd need several sources expressing good opinions. Please see WP:CSECTION and WP:NPOV on this. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

JpGrb, the good opinion on him is his ability to make hit songs and that is already mentioned. The fact is, his music is recepted poorly by music critics and his peers. Yes, there maybe a few who stick up for him, but the overall perception of his music is not good. In fact, the LA Times and SF Chronicle basically provide a good NPOV on him. Richard (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see any "good" reception on him in the article. But as I said, if we're going to include a large "reception" or "criticism" section, it would have to be equal. To have twenty sources, fifteen specifically that say he's not good, two sources that say both, and three that say he's specifically good, then that's not fair. Whether it's true or not, it isn't fair and it isn't how things are (should be) done on Wikipedia. But if you feel you can make the section neutral, I encourage you to try it. Just please follow WP:RS. --HELLØ ŦHERE 14:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said I wanted a criticism section, I am simply wanting to know why there is no criticism of his music in the lede. Given the negative reception of his music, it is only neutral to mention that. Richard (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhmm, I'm not sure you understand WP:NPOV policy. It pertains to the presenting of the notable/reliable information available on him without bias, primarily of the editor. It does not pertain to the editor making a judgment call on which or how much of this information should be presented. To not present notable/reliable info in fact violates NPOV.

---

Quotes from WP:NPOV:

"Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

WP:NPOV#Neutral point of view

"The neutral point of view (NPOV) requires that where multiple perspectives on a topic have been published by reliable sources, all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material."

WP:NPOV#Balance

"Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence."

WP:NPOV#Undue weight

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

etc.

---

If the majority of the reviews are negative, you are to present that. You do not have to even out the article with the same amount of good reviews.

If the majority of info is negative, proportionately there are more negative reviews, therefore the article should reflect this and there's no need to balance it out with the same amount of good reviews (only a proportional ratio of what positive reviews exist in the media). It's biased to try to present an equal or greater amount of positive criticism if, in fact, the artist has not been receiving it.

I should also point out your [HELLØ ŦHERE] sentence:

"Whether it's true or not, it isn't fair and it isn't how things are (should be) done on Wikipedia"

Actually, all that matters is if it's true and backed with reliable sources (as long as it does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). It doesn't matter if you personally disagree with this nor if this is not not how you think things "(should be) done on Wikipedia".

There's no need for a specific criticism section, but the info should be reflected within the article. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My name isn't "HELLØ ŦHERE", and thank you for that very long, very unneeded diatribe. We were discussing. I was not trying to persuade the other editor, I was only making sure that rules were followed. Since the information was added, did I make any mention of it? Did I change it or remove it? No I did not. So obviously it seemed okay on my end. So please go over all of the history before making long speeches for nothing. --HELLØ ŦHERE 14:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fued with Bow-Wow

Following the release of the single "Marco Polo", Soulja Boy Tell'em released a 6 part video series via youtube entitled "Rich Nigga S**t", in which he challenged Bow-Wow to a race with his new Lamborghini. Soulja Boy later released another video criticizing Bow-Wow for renting his Lamborghini, calling him "fake" and "broke" in the video. The two are still exchanging videos, in Soulja Boy's new song "Successful", he relates to the fued. There is no sign that it will end soon. Juney Boondata (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar error in intro

The last sentence:

"Despite his commercial success, his music has been the subject from ridicule from his peers and critics."

"from" ridicule? I'm pretty sure you mean "of" ridicule.

Would fix myself, but the page is semi-protected.24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)