Talk:Beyoncé/Archive 9

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 5

←

Archive 7

→

1.6 The Lenox Hill incident

Are you kidding me? Put a rumor, as a theme in this article..? The Hospital already denied this... Unbelievable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.80.163 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank god someone removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.80.163 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's gone. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I added back in after removal because it looked like a section blanking, but I looked into it and you're right. Completely my mistake, it definitely doesn't belong. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 21:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! That's ok, no problem! Why anyone update what I leave here about Public Image "GQ", and Music and voica section? Isn't appropriat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.80.163 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe people are just lazy. Sign up for an account and you'll be able to do it yourself.

— Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

2013: Upcoming fifth studio album and films and maybe Legacy..?

BEYONCÉ National Anthem PERFORMANCE MEGA SUCCESS IN THE MEDIA

BILLBOARD: Beyonce just gave one of the best, now it's time to see the worst national anthem performances of all time - https://twitter.com/billboard/status/293411834231414784

COSMOPOLITAN: https://twitter.com/Cosmopolitan/status/293410675810770945

IDOLATOR: Only for Beyonce could a performance of the Star-Spangled Banner at Barack Obama‘s Second Inauguration Ceremony be seen as a WARM-UP for her next gig, which just happens to be the Super Bowl Halftime Show. Today (January 21), in front of roughly 800,000 people and accompanied by the US Marine Band, Bey captivated the nation with a stirring rendition of the National Anthem. To all future sporting event performers — this is how it’s done. - http://idolator.com/7401332/beyonce-sings-at-president-barack-obamas-inauguration-watch

GUARDIAN: https://twitter.com/GuardianUS/status/293411997419192321

http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/21/beyonce-national-anthem-barack-obama-inauguration/

GAWKER: http://gawker.com/5977695/beyonce-president-of-the-united-beyonces-rips-out-earpiece-mid+song-and-still-delivers-flawless-performance (VERY INTERESTING THIS ARTICLE - MUST SEE)

INDEPENDENT: Beyoncé's bold performance steals Obama's inauguration show - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/beyoncs-bold-performance-steals-obamas-inauguration-show-8460815.html

WASHINGTON POST: The only voice that really soared at midday was Beyonce’s, while singing the national anthem. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/01/21/obama-inaugurala-flat-partisan-and-pedestrian-speech/

NY POST: Beyonce showed why she’s Queen B with a flawless rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” - http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/beyonce_stuns_with_impressive_anthem_bs9NHpAVDxHJdg5MhiuVyL

PIERS MORGAN CNN: And THAT'S why she's the No1 performer in world music.....incredible! - https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/293410563697029121

CNN: EXCLUSIVE CNN-FACEBOOK SOCIAL WATCH: Social media is reflecting rare reverence today - the top three trending terms on Facebook are "President Obama," "country” and “America”... but Hollywood heat still trumps pomp and circumstance. The top moment in terms of volume of traffic on Facebook today was not around Obama’s inaugural address, it was rather around Beyonce’s singing of the national anthem. - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/21/cnns-gut-check-for-january-21-2013-1/

PLEASE YOU MUST DO SOMETHING WITH THIS ALL INFORMATION, THIS IS HISTORICAL FOR HER! A HUGE MARK! I HOPE THIS APPEARS IN SOME WAY IN THE APPROPRIATE SUBTITLE IN THIS BEYONCÉ ARTICLE! THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.69.173 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done — Oz 22:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

On January 21, 2013, Knowles performed and lip-synced ????????

Once again I see ridiculous things to appear in this article, is very unfortunate! This is just a rumor! We don't know if it was quite like this more it seems that this article is made by people who hate the artist themselves say that they record in the studio for the music to be saved! You should not make this type of interventions and it is no longer the first time This article for me has no longer credibility! I had enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.69.173 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Your right, this looks like a rumour. — Oz 22:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I made this edit which cites reliable sources that she lip-synched. Gh82xc56 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

uh, CNN has been covering this all day. There was an official press statement from the US Marine Corps band stating it was li synced. This is no longer a rumour just because Knowles and her publicist refuse to comment 108.172.113.23 (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there are more than 17,000 Google news results for Beyonce+lip sync. Her fans should not be allowed to keep this out of her blp. 108.172.113.23 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

On one hand, I know its a really hard song to sing well, with a wide range of notes, and I can certainly understand why a professional singer might decide to go with a safely recorded version. Feeling bad? Twinge in the throat? An extra bit of chill in the air? On the other hand, there is still way too much confusion in the media reports to credit it one way or the other and therefore I think it should not yet be included in Wikipedia. It appears the original source is a member of the band, which makes it a second or third hand report--unless he was paying more attention to her lips than to his own performance. There are currently three citations, and NONE of them are definitive. (I actually read one, the second is a known biased source, and third is titled with a question.) On the third hand, this is the kind of partisan fake outrage that FAUX News loves to stir up, which leads to the fourth hand: Does it actually matter at all? On the fifth hand, the ruckus got me to look at Wikipedia. Does that mean I've been rickrolled? Shanen (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

These are the three sources, all of which are reliable:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57565248/beyonce-lip-synced-national-anthem-at-inauguration-marine-band-says/

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/beyonce-lip-synched-anthem-reports-86560.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/01/22/did-beyonce-lip-synch-her-national-anthem-performance-are-you-surprised/

Gh82xc56 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN, THIS ARTICLE DEMONSTRATES TO BE INCOSCISTENTE! I HOPE THEY REMOVE THE MISLEADING INFORMATION.BE A FAN, IN THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO, HERE'S PROOF: IT WAS A LIE!I HOPE THAT FROM NOW ON, MORE CAREFUL WITH WHAT WE GIVE IMPORTANCE, SINCE THEY MAY BE HARMING THE ARTIST.AND THIS IS NOT A PAGE ANY, PEOPLE COME HERE AND TRUST THAT READ, IT IS SAD THAT THIS HAPPENS, IS NOT CORRECT ...

http://www.carltonjordan.com/2013/01/22/new-video-beyonce-did-sing-live-at-the-inauguration/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.69.173 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouty all-capitals and a personal website does not a convincing argument make. Here are more:

http://www.billboard.com/column/the-juice/beyonce-s-lip-synced-inaugural-anthem-is-1008107582.story#/column/the-juice/beyonce-s-lip-synced-inaugural-anthem-is-1008107582.story

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/beyonce-lip-synced-inauguration-official-414994

As the Billboard article states, maybe it's not just a big deal. "This isn't a Milli Vanilli situation." The point of Wikipedia is that we should give all the facts then Ilet Wikipedia readers decide what's important.--Aichik (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Length

11,000 words? Sca (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I know! There is about three times as many words here as there are in Teacher!!!! What kind of world are we living in, where a singer gets three times more than teachers!!!! Marteau (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's over-long. I'm a Beyoncé fan and even I can't get through it.--Aichik (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It may be necessary to move sections to a new article (like with Michael Jackson), but I am struggling on what to move and how to conglomerate it. —Jennie | ☎ 16:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Statements have been retracted and shutdown of her lip-synching, therefore not fact, not to mention singing with a backing track isn't lip-synching at all which is what she did. Her voice is heard but the track is amplified while the band was entirely prerecorded - that is not the technical term of lip-synching in general and on the lip-synching Wikipedia page. This section needs to be edited. Here is the link to an article on CNN covering it with facts and not what the media is taking and running with: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/22/u-s-marine-band-beyonce-did-not-actually-sing-during-inaugural/?hpt=hp_c2.

Removed. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.billboard.com/news/beyonce-did-not-actually-sing-at-inauguration-1008107082.story#/news/beyonce-did-not-actually-sing-at-inauguration-1008107082.story Billboard is confirming it too, so I suggest adding it. It doesn't need to be "Knowles lip-synced the national anthem", however it can be mentioned that her performance sparked controversy. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

For God sake! This is not a CONFIRMATION! Here we go again..!? At least reads well right the article of billboard! "But this afternoon a Marine Corps. spokesperson tried to clarify the statement by removing the implication of lip-syncing, saying that because Beyonce was unable to sufficiently rehearse with the Marine Band, it was decided the performance should include a recorded track for the band's portion.

"Regarding Ms. Knowles-Carter's vocal performance," Capt. Gregory Wolf statement to the AP continued, "no one in the Marine Band is in a position to assess whether it was live or pre-recorded.""

http://www.billboard.com/news/beyonce-did-not-actually-sing-at-inauguration-1008107082.story#/news/beyonce-did-not-actually-sing-at-inauguration-1008107082.story

This article from Wipikedia just have to highlight facts, not rumors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.69.173 (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Then what you wrote there directly implicated that Beyonce indeed lip-synced. I am not saying that Beyonce can't sing, she can and pretty well, but in this case, someone (a member of the band)directly announced that she lip-synced. The information should definitely be in the article, because it sparked controversy. Just to note you it wouldn't be fair not stating that in favor of Kelly Clarkson who indeed performed live. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They also not put here a controversial birth of her daughter Blue Ivy! And very well! Is ridiculous!!!!

ONE MORE TIME: "Regarding Ms. Knowles-Carter's vocal performance," Capt. Gregory Wolf statement to the AP continued, "no one in the Marine Band is in a position to assess whether it was live or pre-recorded.""

I said all I had to say! I trust in the common sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.69.173 (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't bold your text and act like this. Talk and discuss this nicely. The surrogate maternity was something different, rumors which were never confirmed. This is something confirmed by the member of the Marine band and is worth of mentioning. Don't see the big deal of it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is most definitely is more of a rumor. Someone who was at the hospital when she gave birth could state to the media that she didn't, and it was someone else. That doesn't make something true. Yes, info could be added that is sparked controversy when there were reports, but you don't say that someone lipped a song, ever. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree with you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of article ownership and pov is being induced into this discussion, please be neutral, even if this news are nothing but rumors it became relevant, the media is discussing this, several relevant media such as Billboard, TIME, Los Angeles Times, E! BBC and CBS News covered the fact, if it is a rumour or not it already received enough attention to be featured and incorporated into the article. The info should be neutral as such with pros and cons arguments, as if either she did lip-synch or she did not lip-synch. If this page is going to be infested with stans and fans and haters I'm going to ask for a temporary hard lock if the issue goes on. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a neutral statement about the controversy in the article. I think most of users will agree of its neutrality. Of course they can freely edit it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

These stories might be worth reading before continuing this discussion. --John (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

Beyoncé Launches Blog - http://observer.com/2013/01/queen-of-the-beyhive-beyonce-launches-blog/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.69.173 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 - Super Bowl Performance

Super Bowl should be contemplated with 2013: Upcoming fifth studio album, national anthem, Super Bowl and films, Madonna also has in her article (2010-present: W.E., MDNA, Super Bowl and business ventures). Is a highlight of her career, a "celebration" of her work that has been done to date. I removed the word controversial because anyone who reads the article notices. Is something that is already implicit.

"Beyoncé and her team have been great to work with throughout this process," McCarthy says ... adding, "We have enjoyed her creativity, vision and spirit in putting on a great show that is truly a Super Bowl performance."

http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/29/nfl-beyonce-super-bowl-defends-blue-ivy/#ixzz2JPv6HTTO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.69.173 (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Oz 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé National Anthem no lip-sync at Super Bowl XLVII press conference

02:41 – Beyoncé surprised the media at her Super Bowl XLVII presser by starting off with a rendition of the National Anthem that put to rest any question... (This was a really smart move from her to start, singing a cappella, so I think it was good to say this in the article) http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000133392/No-lip-sync-here-Beyonce-signs-the-National-Anthem?campaign=Twitter_videos_beyonce

NEW ORLEANS – Beyonce had a very bold answer for critics of her inaugural performance.

"I am a perfectionist. I did not have time to rehearse with the orchestra for a live television show and a very very important emotional show for me one of my proudest moments," Beyonce told the assembled crowd at the New Orleans Convention Center. "I did not feel comfortable taking a risk. It was about the president and the inauguration and I wanted to make him and our country proud so I decided to sing along with my prerecorded track. I'm very proud of my performance."

(I think it was important to put this complete sentence of her reply and explanation and not just a part of it. I think it have relevance, and explains better her position!) http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/01/31/beyonce-super-bowl-press-conference-national-anthem/1881179/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.54.160 (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

2011–12: 4 and motherhood / 1.4 2006-07: B'Day

2011–12: 4 and motherhood

You put out this "New Management" part on the title. I think it should be, since it represents her independence, and is that she has said in all the documentaries and mini movies to promote the album 4 movies, as well as in the next film Life is but a dream, it will be spoken again! New management is extremely important since it assumes command of her career and sets as new goal to acquire her independence! It's quite a change in her work, work process and personal life.

2011–12: New management, 4 and motherhood

And in this title 1.4 2006-07: B'Day I think the most correct should be: 1.4 2006-07: B'Day and film because in all other you mention the movies, this should happen the same here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.69.173 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Oz 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Okey! Thank you!

Justone more thing in 2013:

"In an interview with Broadway's Electric Barnyard, Kelly Clarkson, who was at the inauguration, said she wasn't sure if Beyonce was lip-syncing"

This is really important to you? Many celebrities came out in defense of beyoncé, many others gave opinions ... I think what's in the article is fine, but this sentence for me is completely over. If not we would have to put what all the celebrities has said and this page would not have room for anything else. I think the important thing about the controversy is already said! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.69.173 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed. I did not add this but I agree it's not needed here. — Oz 21:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move February 2013

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé – She's almost never referred to by her full name, and all of her albums/singles are credited to her first name, never her last. I see this situation as a case of WP:COMMONNAME. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I've never seen media use her last name, unlike Reba McEntire or Wynonna Judd, where the media goes both ways. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Strong oposse. Nothing has changed since the last RM. Give a better reason because "Beyonce" is much more common than "Beyoncé". Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, "all of her albums/singles are credited to her first name" is false. I have I Am... CD, and she is credited by her full name in every song (if you have an album or a single you can read I am not lying). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have clarified that I'm not referring to the writing credits, but the name used on the actual cover/artwork. My bad. WikiRedactor (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose. She is only known simply as Beyoncé for recording. For film, fashion, etc. she is known by her full name. Even in her album booklets it is "produced by Beyoncé Knowles" and "written by Beyoncé Knowles". — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
And before somebody compares her to Madonna, firstly, her name is just Madonna, she doesn't have a last name, and secondly, she is always credited as simply Madonna for everything. Whereas Beyonce isn't. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Madonna was born Louise Veronnica Ciconne, and that just reinfornces our claim. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Strongest Oppose Many people and media call Ricardo Arjona as just Arjona, but that doesn't mean we should name his article "Arjona". Same applies here and to any other person whose real name is very close to their stage names. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose nominator is incorrect. Show me the Destiny's Child where it's just "Beyonce" most of the time. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. "Similarly, don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used," per NCP. Amazon has several bios that call her "Beyoncé Knowles", see [http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Love-Beyonce-Knowles-Biography/dp/1849388741/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8& here] or [http://www.amazon.com/Beyonc%C3%A9-Knowles-Jean-Pierre-Hombach/dp/1470134519/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8 here]. Kauffner (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose and speedy close There is no evidence that she is hardly ever called by her full name, and plenty of evidence against. Also, this issue has already been discussed extensively NUMEROUS times before, and the page has never been moved. Usually, it appears, there was a clear consensus not to move. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2013: The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour

Beyoncé's performance at the Super Bowl has been extremely spoken, and has been a real success for the entire internet and means of communication. You are not going to put here some of the most important accolades? Since the billboard, new york times, etc etc. .. There are actually plenty of interesting matter about the impact that her performance had! I think it would be important, pass this fact!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21319757

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/sports/football/beyonce-brings-intensity-to-halftime-show-and-silences-doubters.html?_r=1&

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/1537625/beyonce-bowl-how-queen-b-scored-at-halftime

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/02/03/beyonce-super-bowl-halftime-revie/

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/beyonce-rocks-super-bowl-halftime-show-destiny-child-article-1.1254476

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-beyonce-superbowl-20130204,0,947429.story

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/02/03/beyonce-super-bowl-halftime-show-review/1883123/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/03/beyonce-halftime-super-bowl-xlvii-live/1888003/

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/beyonce-electrifies-at-super-bowl-halftime-show-8479356.html

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1537623/beyonce-rocks-fierce-super-bowl-halftime-show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.109.228 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU, I ALREADY SEE THE UPDATES! BUT HERE IT SOMETHING NEW AND VERY VERY IMPORTANT!

RECORD!! Record 164.1 Million Fans Tune in to Super Bowl XLVII on CBS - making it the most-viewed show in U.S. television history according to The Nielsen Company.

http://nflcommunications.com/2013/02/04/record-164-1-million-fans-tune-in-to-super-bowl-xlvii-on-cbs/

More than 5.5million tweets were sent during Beyoncé's half time show at the Super Bowl XLVII, on Sunday night. - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2273139/Super-Bowl-2013-Celebs-pay-tribute-Beyonc-s-electrifying-half-time-Twitter.html#axzz2JyOFVhp6 (Look it here with attention, because have many comments about the her performance!)

Beyoncé 'So Proud' Of Super Bowl Performance Nielsen estimates that halftime show drew an average of 104 million viewers.

Billboard estimates the half-hour that included Beyoncé's 14-minute extravaganza was one of the most-watched parts of the game

Beyoncé told "Extra" after the performance. "All the hard work, five months of preparation, and it was really great." She was also thrilled about sharing the stage again with Michelle and Kelly, adding, "It really was a magnificent night for me and the girls."

By Monday afternoon, 16 Beyoncé/Destiny's Child singles and 12 solo and DC albums had jumped onto the iTunes sales chart. Though iTunes does not release sales data, industry sources told Billboard that in the week ending on Sunday Beyoncé's digital sales were up by more than 230 percent and DC's sales exploded by more than 600 percent.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1701357/beyonce-superbowl-show-ratings.jhtml

Legacy

Grimes: 'Beyoncé is changing the world'

"She's changing the world. She stands for people of colour and women everywhere succeeding in a stifling patriarchy without compromising her morals. And she makes challenging, interesting art. She's always positive. She is everything good. And the fact that she is hugely successful is not a shitty thing. It's an important and amazing thing and she clearly works hard for it."

http://www.nme.com/news/grimes/68575 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.109.105 (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

1981–96: Early life and career beginnings

Beyoncé and Kelly Rowland aren't cousins. Beyoncé often referred to Kelly as her "cousin" in early interviews, but in fact they're not related; they're just good friends. When Kelly was eight, she met Beyoncé for the first time, and moved in with The Knowles shortly afterward. According to bio., "At seven, Rowland’s mother left her father due to domestic abuse and moved the family to Houston, Texas. There, Kelly met another budding songstress, Beyoncé Knowles. According to reports, Doris felt it was better for her daughter to live with the Knowles, and Beyoncé’s parents Matthew and Tina agreed to provide legal guardianship over Kelly."

The media has mistakenly reported that the two are cousins for years because of the way Beyoncé has described Kelly, but there's no truth to it because neither woman has talked about how they're specifically related, and they didn't meet each other until they were 8 years old.

Biography.com

Not sure on the reliability of biography.com. Do you have a better source. AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Done I've removed the cousin claim for the article, I'm not sure that this is verifiable from one source. If she was, wouldn't it be widely established and reported? —Jennie | ☎ 22:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It is actually verifiable and widely reported.[1] Some are the BBC and New York Post so reliability is not an issue. It could well be as the OP says, that the misinformation has spread though media outlets, but there should be at least one semi-reliable report saying that she isn't. AIRcorn (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

The biography mentions various awards she has achieved and so does the legacy. It is a little repetitive to have it in both. Maybe they should all be included in the legacy section. The forbes ones would fit better there too. AIRcorn (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Where is the Philanthropic section???... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.109.105 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was removed and merged into her biography. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Telegraph: Pop's 20 Greatest Female Artists of All-Time

[2]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

3. Legacy

In this item you should put available the link of her list of awards and nominations! This list disappeared in this article... I don't understand why.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.67.190 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you it's so much better!! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.188.66 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Public Image or Legacy

Beyoncé and Jay-Z Named Power Couple of 2013

They’re the King and Queen of Hollywood and now it’s official, Beyoncé and Jay-Z have been named the power couple of 2013.

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/relationships/beyonce-280506.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.188.66 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Public Image

Hello, when you have time please organize the public image zone, it seems disorganized, some dates are not in order... It's a little confusing, at least that's what it seems to me, needs to be organized. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.188.66 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I'm sure myself and some editors will look over this. —Jennie | ☎ 11:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 - Life Is But A Dream

Beyonce's HBO Doc Pulls 1.8 Million Viewers - The Saturday night film is the cable network's most-watched documentary effort in nearly 10 years.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-beyonces-hbo-doc-422398 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.188.66 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This has already been added to the Life Is But a Dream page. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 11:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

2013

Beyonce Signs Global Administration Deal With Warner/Chappell Publishing

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/1549702/beyonce-signs-global-administration-deal-with-warnerchappell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.79.231 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done —Jennie | ☎ 11:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Addressing length

This has been mentioned above, and its obvious a lot of editors are now picking up on the fact that this is a rather long article. Rather than dispute what should be cut or what should stay, do you think it might be possible to split some of these sections into articles of their own, in similar vein to that of Michael Jackson? He had sections such as Michael Jackson's health and appearance, List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson, Personal relationships of Michael Jackson, etc. Obviously some of these won't be relevant to Beyoncé, but do you think we could split the article like this? —Jennie | ☎ 20:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we can cut down excessive detail so that splits are not needed. I and a few other editors have trimmed the legacy section, for example. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It was put up for reassessment partly due to its length, and since then it has been reduced from over 60kb of prose to about 40kb. I don't actually think it is too bad lengthwise at the moment. I was thinking about combining the other ventures section into the main biography, which could possibly reduce the length further. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

any objections to the above proposal? AIRcorn (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, keep at it, AIRcorn! --Aichik (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2013-02-05/is-beyonce-the-heir-apparent-to-michael-jackson/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.79.231 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rename legacy

There has been some comments here, at the GAR and in edit summaries about the legacy section. I was thinking a rename to better cover what the goal of this section is might be a good idea. Legacy generally applies to people who have passed away, but are still influencing people or genres. Also there are awards and other information there which are arguably not a legacy (I know I put a lot of them there, but there were some before). The heading that I thought of was "Accolades". I would think that would cover everything, including all the artists that cite her as an influence. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Another option is to split out and "Awards and achievements" section. AIRcorn (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We could go for titling the section something like "Recognition" or "Impact". I agree that "Legacy" is a more fitting name for an artist who has left something for pop culture (or whatever) and has influenced many. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I do agree that legacy is something which tends to be something that is used when somebody dies, but it is widely used on Wikipedia (even Rihanna has such a section) when people are alive. Knowles has influenced pop music heavily for the past 15th years, after Super Bowl a number of journalists wondered whether she had recaptured Michael Jackson's legacy and Knowles even said "this is my legacy", so I think it is a relevant term here. Plus, I think she deserves such a section; exemplified through the achievements, awards, statistics, artistry and talent described within it. —Jennie | ☎ 17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your comment Jennie--x (the name of the section should be legacy), although you don't need to give some absurd comments like even Rihanna has such a section. Why wouldn't she have a Legacy section? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been quite vague there! I wasn't being rude about Rihanna in any way (quite the opposite), just this discussion is a continuation from the GAR where Diana Ross is used as an example of someone who has a short legacy section with a long career. What I was trying to say is that the length of career is irrelevant; whether that be Ross' (50+ years), Knowles' (15 years) or Rihanna's (8 years). —Jennie | ☎ 17:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Makes a lot of sense. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

By definition, legacy fits Beyoncé, but there are better titles I think, like "Impact". Yes, such a section is perfectly alright. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and split out the awards and achievements. There seems to be no consensus to change the title and at least this way it is more relevant. AIRcorn (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this edit?

Aichik is repeatedly removing these two sentences. At this point, I have no other choice than to bring this on the talk-page. I have the impression that many people are ignoring his edits, let alone his personal attacks. I may be wrong but that's my point of view. Here is another piece of information he removed and masked through his edit summaries. Despite her other ventures, Beyonce is first and foremost a singer. So according to you, is it important or not to have her rank on all time charts of the two biggest music markets in the world, that is the US (which is her home country) and the UK? Please vote; Remove or Add back. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to the GAR. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Kww told to bring it to the talk page. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk page/GAR doesn't make much difference to me, just as long as people are discussing things. I am keeping an eye on this conflict and issuing warnings when I think they are appropriate. I hope everyone tries to behave, and remembers that there is nothing inherently wrong with removing material, and the article probably doesn't need a ranking per format type per country or a listing of every award receivedin order to be complete. Aichik may or may not be removing the right ones, but people need to be discussing which of these are necessary.—Kww(talk) 04:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't act as if I have presented a list of >10 countries here. This is only about the US and the UK. I did specify that very well in the opening lines. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Add back. She is a singer in the first place, and this belongs to it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Add back - I think these sentences are perfectly appropriate in the context of their paragraph, especially since this is the 'main' Beyoncé article. They're also correctly referenced. I see no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT for Aichik's removal of this material. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do this.[3] If you wanted wider input you should have opened a RFC or just posted to a Wikiproject. You have just poisoned the well. AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not canvassing. I have never asked anyone to support me. I just asked them to participate. And I also notified people who are NOT members of the wikiproject. Believe it or not, leaving a message on the talk-page of the wiki-project often goes unnoticed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Then how did you choose these editors? Either way, it gives the appearance of canvassing and now even if they were going to respond (as I imagine Status would have), it looks like they only are because you asked them to. AIRcorn (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I may not be a native speaker of English but I know that canvassing is asking people to support. I never did that. I just asked them to participate. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you only ask editors to participate because you think they would support your point of view then that is also canvassing. If you chose to notify editors because the have contributed over 50 edits to this article or for some other predefined reason that would be fine. As soon as you start to subjectively notify editors you are going to run into problems. AIRcorn (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am sorry for that. I was not aware I would be assumed to be doing something I did not even do. Sorry. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have informed Aichik of this discussion on his/her talk page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Add back - One of a very important fact for Beyonce. As a recording artist, her status on digital sales is of high importance. jmarkfrancia (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment – I believe there are pros and cons of both side. First of all Aichik's removal was uncalled for without discussion, and simply iterating terms like "fanboys" and "misogynist" etc does not help his/her editorial removal case. Secondly, Jivesh although I don't think you are canvassing at all, I do believe you did not need to resort to use phrases like "pressed stan" whatever that is, don't stoop to their level; other wise your actions are fine I believe. Thirdly, I believe the points which are removed, they are surely to be added back, and they need to be stremlined. At present they are just separate chunks of information without any flow. So, in conclusion, add back those removed content, because this is certainly a critical and commercial prominence of the artist in consideration. Let me know what comes out of this, I can help you stream line it. Cheers, —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I am just gong to make this a general comment as I am mainly interested in getting this to GA standard and I don't think either of those edits (added or removed) will impact that much. This article should be written for people like me. Someone who doesn't really know much about the artist before they read it. You should aim to make it interesting and long lists of people who were influenced by her or awards she has received don't really do it. No matter what the topic is, an article heavy on statistics is going to not be very appealing to anyone except fans. You don't have to lose all the information, just move it to sub articles. That way the casual reader is going to get a good overview and the person looking for more details can still find the information they desire. I would just chose the most relevant awards, rankings, influences etc and mention them. If she was named number one on a prestigious list then saying she was number 10 on a minor one is not really adding anything. In fact I would argue that it would dilute the attention away from the more important listing. AIRcorn (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A singer's bio page and especially one who is popular is bound to contain some statistics. It's not as if I have added the amount of digital and physical copies each of her albums and songs sold or the audience impressions each of her single had. I am only referring to those two important statistics Aichik removed. And coming to the award, Knowles was the first female artist to be honored with the International Artist Award at the American Music Awards, I don't see any valid reason of why this does not deserve a mention. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It used to though[4]. That is why I made this a general comment. Like I said if you dilute the achievements out by putting in even minor ones or ones which are not that impressive then you are actually doing her a disservice. Having the AMAs seems fair enough, but the golden globes is way more prestigious than the MTV movie awards so I can see why that was removed. AIRcorn (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Add back - Useful informations. · Mcdonalds (talk · cont), at 12:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Add back - I can't see how this isn't useful or important. Why is the user removing this information? This should be kept, seeing how status on sales are important for every artist. Same for the AMA award, I just think you guys should specify that the International Artist Award came from the American Music Awards, knowing that not every user who reads the page will click on the International Artist Award link to see what it means or what it is all about. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 13:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Add back. It's obvious that he is removing relevant information to the singer's legacy. If we want to trim the section it's better to remove those quotes from reviewers, but no the records she made allover US and UK. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Add Back, the sales ranking of an artist in their two biggest territories if obviously an important part of the singer's legacy. In terms of trimming the article I agree with Tomica, remove the quotes from reviewers and focus on quantitative facts like sales and awards. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Add Back I have the same opinion that Lil-unique1. Ben76210 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Add back most of the removed information in the diffs, but don't restore the MTV Movie Awards (excessive detail). It's a little more assuring to know that I wasn't the only one getting concerned about the section, which was just constantly being fed with excessive and unneeded information and growing to monstrous proportions. The section really needs the cohesiveness and summary style editors mentioned above. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Add back – Agree with users above. It is relevant information. 0z (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Add back - Agree with users above, there was no need in removing it. Best, Jona ^{talk to me} 22:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Add back - Extremely relevant. These edits are obviously more of a subtle attack, rather than a genuine, thought-out, necessary removal Lolcakes25 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I brought up this discussion here referring to

Beyonce's rank in the US which was removed
Beyonce's rank in the UK which was removed
and the AMA award which was removed
NOTHING MORE

So why are Kww and Aircorn and some other editors repeatedly talking about how long this list was, or the importance of Knowles' ranking on a certain list, or other awards she received but were removed from the article? Why? My ONLY concern at the moment with this list is that Knowles' stats in the US and the UK where she stands as one of the best-selling of all time (top 10 in each) was unjustifiably removed + that AMA award for which she was the first female artist in history to receive. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether these three items are actually three of the most important items in an excessively long list. That's the problem with asking about an individual fact. This article is much larger than it needs to be, and piles of less important material needs to be removed. The question to ask is "why is Beyonce's ranking for a specific format in a specific year in a specific country one of the most important things there is to say about Beyonce?" I strongly suspect that it isn't.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Again the same thing. Again!!! This is NOT about a year. Both of these ranks were about all time best selling artists in the US and the UK. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I misread. The Nielsen report starts with "have announced the 2011 calendar year sales and airplay monitoring data for the 52-week period January 3, 2011 through January 1, 2012. " and I didn't see the Beyonce ranking was from a wider range than that.—Kww(talk) 12:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Add back - And honestly, the editor that removed it should just let it go and stop using such hard words.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete - The importance of the AMA award is questionable. It's not even listed among other AMA awards on the AMA's Wikipedia article. I suspect it was made just to be able to feature Beyoncé, which is not bad, but this still does not automatically confer it its importance. It's not something that people spout on about: "Wow, did you know that so-and-so is THIS YEAR'S INTERNATIONAL AWARD WINNER AT THE AMA'S?? Oh my God! Wow, I can't believe it." AMA's are notorious for being regional (regional to the US) and regional-minded, and it just sounds like an award they created to seem less so, perhaps to try to enter new markets. Many of these shows create awards willy nilly to keep it fresh and to try to attract new viewers. So I vote to take it out. But because Jivesh boodhun and the editors he's canvassed seem stuck on arguing on and on about keeping every award she has won on up there--readability be damned--it seems like many need to be reminded of the CONTEXT in which this somewhat dubious award appears. So here's a paraphrasing of the context:

Knowles has earned numerous awards and honors. (My emphasis. This means that she has won a great many awards.)

1.) sold over 13 million albums in the US, and 2) over 75 million records worldwide, one of the best-selling music artists of all time.

3) The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the top certified artist of the 2000s, 64 certifications.

4) "Crazy in Love", "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", "Halo" and "Irreplaceable" are some of the best-selling singles of all time worldwide.

5) 2009, The Observer Artist of the Decade

6) Billboard, Top Female Artist and Top Radio Songs Artist of the Decade.

7) 2010, number 52 on VH1's list of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time"

8) Billboard "Top 50 R&B/Hip-Hop Artists of the Past 25 Years" at #15.

9) In 2012 VH1 ranked her third, "100 Greatest Women in Music".

10) Knowles was the 1st female artist, the "International Artist Award" at the American Music Awards.

11) Legend Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Arts at the 2008 World Music Awards

12) the Billboard Millennium Award at the 2011 Billboard Music Awards.

13) The New Yorker music critic Jody Rosen comments.

NEXT PARAGRAPH:

14) 17 Grammy Awards, both as a solo artist and member of Destiny's Child, { also stated in the a) intro and b) the body } making her the third most honored female artist by the Grammys.

15) "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" won Song of the Year in 2010

16) "Say My Name",[21] and "Crazy in Love" had previously won Best R&B Song.

17) Dangerously in Love, B'Day and I Am... Sasha Fierce have all won Best Contemporary R&B Album.

18) The record for the most Grammy awards won by a female artist in one night in 2010, 6 awards from her 10 nominations.

19) her role in Dreamgirls: nominated for Best Original Song for "Listen" and Best Actress at the Golden Globe Awards, and 20) Outstanding ----Actress in a Motion Picture at the NAACP Image Awards.

Then a THICK, TEDIOUS PARAGRAPH ON HER FORBES RANKINGS BETWEEN 2009 and 2011.

Thus I highly doubt that taking out the mention of the "International Award" at one AMA, even if it was created for her, as well as a few more, would be the equivalent of sticking a finger in the star's eye, which is how Jivesh boodhun, Tomica, and other editors have been treating it.--Aichik (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't only remove the information about the AMA special award, but also bunch of other information which is essentially important for the legacy of the singer. Instead of trimming some unneeded commentary from critics, you are removing crucial information and I don't see the actual reason for that. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed it but it's back in. So don't make me look like I'm the aggressive one. And yes, I removed other information which was haggled over piece by piece. Not arguing about that. It's quite unbelievable since there's still 20+ stats on there. You read my paraphrase above, and yet you think this is acceptable writing for a GA? To quote you, "WTF"?--Aichik (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it's back in because it's a relevant information. And I don't find you aggressive, but I think you should really first analyze your edits before removing such an important stuff for the singer. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I don't? What's important is relative to the editor. Because you are 20 years old, you can't see how this article suffers from WP:RECENTISM. (Actually, age shouldn't limit one's view if one reads enough and really strives to be objective.) The same could be argued the other way: Do you even think about what's important when you defend a 25th stat or the inclusion of a minor singer who hasn't yet had a hit who was influenced by one of the most popular singers in the world?--Aichik (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all she is not a minor singer [I am not her fan, I admit like some of her songs and her looks, but still not my field], she has done such incredible things for her age. She doesn't have to have a hit who influenced some other singers. Those statistics that you actually removed were the one making her a great singer. Again ignoring me, you were trimming the article right? So, why don't removed those quotes from some reviewers? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Tom, you know better than me than you are wasting your time talking to Aichik. He simply won't listen. And according to him, I have lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board. Last but not the least, he thinks Beyonce should not have so many articles being GAs because Jennifer Lopez and Diana Ross don't have. Pathetic. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's indeed pathethic. I don't know what to say, If I further say something I guess I will be judged... — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Tomica, I don't know WHICH singer you're talking about. Be more clear. She doesn't have to have a hit who influenced some other singers. Is this English? Who are you talking about? Because if you are trying to address the general reader, you do indeed have to use examples of singers who've have hits who've been influenced by Beyonce because the latter (Beyonce) has indeed had great influence but just listing them turns off the general reader: You have to prioritize. Think about the writing that goes into a Grammys presentation. IF they feature Beyonce, do they list every single minor singer that she influenced? No, because it would turn off the general reader. If you go to these minor singers' individual articles there will be mention of Beyonce. Also it can be inferred, that Beyonce's influenced alot of younger singers. Her music and her brand are everywhere, come on!! And what quotes from other singers are you talking about? We have one from Lady Gaga, one from the New Yorker critic. If I took one out, other people agreed with me. Maybe you didn't understand the logic, so tell me which one.--Aichik (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? And okay once again, I was talking in general: a singer doesn't have to had a song that influenced some other singer so she/he would have all this things about the records [that btw you are removing] included in their respective Legacy section. Yeah, I agree the section is big and needs trimming, however, you are removing significantly important stuff about Knowles. And about the quotes I am referring to all the quotes [Gaga, reviewers etc etc etc], because I don't find them much important in this comprehensive section. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

By way of a compromise, could some of her min or awards and accolades, for which nothing except 'she won such award for best whatever' can be said, be placed in a (collapsible) table or list format? This doesn't constitute an an offer to reformat said content - it's just a suggestion to end the current impasse. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

When there's 10+ users against the removal, and only one for it, I don't see any reason for a compromise. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the section is over-wordy and needs condensing, but that removing content at random is the wrong approach. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, although I think the current link to her awards list is good enough. Just removing the mentions in the bio will do, IMO. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, and no, Status, I don't think 10+ canvassed users really counts the same as 10+ uncanvassed ones. The problem is that even with such a created link, certain users have been so nuts about the subject that they continue to argue on keeping it in the body. They did this with the singers influenced by Beyonce link. Just up and ignored that it was created. --Aichik (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really all for lists with influenced artists, but withdrew my comment since there are other similar lists out there and they haven't been questioned. I think if we do have subarticles such as these, that we really summarize in the parent article. Best, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should remove the award mentions from the bio, perhaps except the night were she won 6 and set the record, I think the narrative might be useful here which isn't present on the list of awards page. Also, I think that the "artists influenced by" could be condensed (in light of the page) and the section on wealth moved out of "Legacy" (perhaps to Other ventures?) as it's perhaps not totally relevant there. —Jennie | ☎ 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

2013

Beyoncé Leads New Gucci Empowerment Campaign

BEYONCÉ KNOWLES, Salma Hayek and Frida Giannini have launched a new Gucci global campaign for female empowerment, Chime For Change. The initiative aims to raise funds and awareness in support of projects for girls and women around the world, through sharing "powerful stories" about inspiring females.

"I have always felt strongly about equal opportunity for women. Girls have to be taught from early on that they are strong and capable of being anything they want to be," said Knowles. "It's up to us to change the statistics for women around the world. I'm honoured to be in the company of women who live fearlessly and set an example for the next generation of young ladies."

The campaign will be officially announced at the TEDxWomen luncheon today by Salma Hayek, who will present a short film detailing the aims of the scheme - narrated by the actress, and set to new music by Knowles. The video is the first in a series of ten Chime For Change short films featuring inspirational women's stories.

http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2013/02/28/beyonce-knowles-salma-hayek-gucci-chime-for-change-campaign-frida-giannini — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.79.231 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done - Is this instrumental from her upcoming fifth album? —Jennie | ☎ 20:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

YES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.75.242 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Current GA Status

Just to let you know I've posted some thoughts about the article in relation to the reassessment and its status now on the GA page. I think thoughts/comment would be welcome. —Jennie | ☎ 18:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Please change "As a solo artist, Knowles has sold over 13 million albums in the United States and over 75 million records worldwide, making her one of the best-selling music artists of all time." to "As a solo artist, Knowles has sold over 13 million albums in the United States and over 118 million records worldwide, making her one of the best-selling music artists of all time." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-6151266.html TheTruDoll (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Done The source currently used is from September 2009, while yours is from September 2010. (Actually, 118 million is still "over" 75 million.) Hue Sat Lum 23:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this really needed?

How far is this an important piece of information? Wikipedia is not a tabloid, newspaper, magazine, etc. She did not even fake her pregnancy, so why mention this? If a Billboard Millennium Award is not important to an artist's bio page, then how is this? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It definitely is important considering the amount of endless media attention it garnered; the MTV performance and the rumours of surrogacy perhaps define the whole period she was pregnant, significant enough for her to dispel the latter in her documentary last month. —Jennie | ☎ 10:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm rewording this (in line with the new documentary). —Jennie | ☎ 10:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

But Jennie, as you just wrote, they were simply rumors. And Beyonce did not talk about it on her own. She was asked about it, that's why she had to talk about it (reply to the interviewer). And all this happened only last month, which translates into nearly two years after revealing her pregnancy. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Rumors (here, allegations) form part of what should be included on Wikipedia (see here). Are you aware that Life is But A Dream was directed, executively produced, narrated and filmed by Knowles? It was her project exclusively, and by extension, her choice to address it. —Jennie | ☎ 11:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course I know. I have watched the documentary and you can notice she was replying to a man there while she was sitting on that couch. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There was, but to say Beyoncé had to talk about it because she was asked about it is obviously wrong. She was the person who devised the whole film; her choice is explicitly clear. The fact she chooses to cover this shows us that the allegations were significant, although the media coverage during the period is enough to warrant its inclusion alone. —Jennie | ☎ 14:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I still do not completely agree with you but your arguments are also good. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Again...

Where did this [piece of information vanish? This does not have its place here? Please stop removing such information. She was Billboard Woman of the Year for God's sake not one of Billboard Women of the Year. She was the sole. How is this not an important information? How is this not relevant? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move March 2013

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé – There's really only one Beyoncé. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Failed a month ago, nothing's changed. LCS check (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy procedural close this was just discussed, if you don't like it, take it to WP:MRV ;
- Oppose nominator didn't provide a rationale. Further, per February move request, she's frequently known with her surname attached, particularly during her Destiny's Child days. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy procedural close just discussed, no new information and
- Oppose nominator didn't provide a rationale In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Isn't it time to get Beyoncé this issue? Kauffner (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2013 - Beyoncé in H&M Summer Collection 2013

Beyoncé new face of H&M

"As well as posing up for the campaign, which has also seen the singer create a track called "Standing On The Sun" for the accompanying video directed by Jonas Akerlund, Beyoncé also had a hand in helping design the new collection".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2296817/Beyonc-smoulders-sizzling-new-shoot-shes-unveiled-new-face-H-M.html

"It was a beautiful shoot on a tropical island. It felt more like making a video than a commercial," she said, adding: "I really loved the concept we collaborated on to explore the different emotions of women represented by the four elements - fire, water, earth and wind."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/news/beyonce-goes-hot-for-style-campaign-29146145.html

http://www.beyonce.com/news/beyonce-in-h-m-summer-collection-2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.95.66 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Done —Jennie | ☎ 16:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Beyoncé Knowles

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Beyoncé Knowles's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nyt":

From Atlanta: John Caramanica, "Gucci Mane, No Holds Barred ", ‘‘New York Times’’, December 11, 2009
From Upgrade U: Jon Pareles (September 4, 2006). "All That Success Is Hard on a Girl (or Sounds That Way)". The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. Retrieved January 8, 2011.
From Frida Giannini: Menkes, Suzy (January 18, 2010). "The Calm After the Storm". The New York Times. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
From Barack Obama: Herszenhorn, David M. (December 7, 2009). "Abortion Was at Heart of Wrangling". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 11, 2009. Retrieved December 6, 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting: Goldstein, Joseph; Rashbaum, William (December 14, 2012). "27 Killed in Connecticut Shooting, Including 20 Children". The New York Times. Retrieved December 14, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment update

Hello,

We are currently reviewing where we are with the GA reassessment, and your comments/decision to as whether we should close the article or continue the reassessment are welcome here. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 20:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Main image

I've posted this before, but we are now in 2013 yet the same image from early 2011 of her with her hair partly covering her face is still being used. --Lolcakes25 (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Any reason why any new pictures that get added are always deleted? I think it's about time it changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolcakes25 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It does need to be updated, but new pictures are never added to replace it. I'm sure some will come along with the new tour, however. —Jennie | ☎ 22:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Blue Ivy edit

There are two lines just about the baby's cries on "Glory" and her being credited on the song. Fine but then after that the Billboard record for her appearance even though she isn't yet a conscious individual making her decision to appear on a song? 2) It's a Billboard record, not a Guinness Book record. The music industry has a way of promoting itself to sell records. It's not as legitimate as a record as one established outside of the industry. Again, remember, BI was 2 days old (pre-conscious) and not even singing! If we put her cries in there, we'll have to find whoever the youngest person was on whatever record who said something on any album. 3) "Glory" itself only reached #74 on the charts, low for a singer-songwriter as important as Jay-Z. The fact of BI's "input" would be more noteworthy if it even touched the top 20, but it did not. Finally has been an attempt to include the baby's weight in the article as well. None of these seem as newsworthy as the fact that the couple tried to trademark Blue Ivy's name.

Because we have an issue with length and style related to length we cannot put all of this here. Someone is free to start the inevitable Blue Ivy entry but in the meantime I'm noting this here: When I decide to put in the fact of the trademark attempt, I'll have to cut one of these so you will all know what that's about without crying foul.--Aichik (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that the attempt to trademark BIC's name is more newsworthy. Using Google search "blue ivy trademark" produced 3,560,000 results, a search for "blue ivy glory" produced 7,410,000 results (more than double) and a search for "blue ivy billboard" produced 4,930,000 results. There will be a little bloat towards BIC in the article (because it is merged here), but nothing needs removing to satisfy GA criteria. If necessary, we could establish a "Knowles-Carter family" article, where the BIC paragraphs could be moved to, as well as the personal relationship between her and Jay-Z (I think similar articles exist for high-profile relationships/families). —Jennie | ☎ 17:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Guiness recognises it here. —Jennie | ☎ 17:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are using Google to support your own opinion. "Jesus Christ water into wine" gets 2,030,000 results, "Jesus Christ immaculate conception" gets the same, but "Jesus Christ died on a cross" gets 38,100,000. If you were Christian, which Beyoncé is, I think, the second and the third points are of equal importance. Google searches only gauge worldwide Internet user interest, which although impressive, is completely arbitrary. Anyway, so BIC baby cries as Guiness World Record is as important as the news that the couple tried to trademark it. We can fit that in.--Aichik (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You stated that the attempt to trademark BIC's name was more newsworthy than her appearance on "Glory" and the subsequent record that became of it. How religions see significance has nothing to do with what is seen as popular in news. —Jennie | ☎ 19:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I should note I have no objection to its inclusion, just the removal of content in favour of it. —Jennie | ☎ 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. Carter

Beyonce Knowles' fifth album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAG123 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done Unsourced. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been sourced now, but I wonder whether we should remove it. The only person asserting this is an editor from the Rolling Stone (she provides no source) and a lot of other sites are treating this as more of a rumour than fact; should we wait for official confirmation? —Jennie | ☎ 14:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

2013

Chime For Change Concert

Proud to make some noise for girls and women with Chime for Change at The Sound of Change Live concert, June 1st in London.

http://www.beyonce.com/news/chime-for-change-concert

On June 1st, CHIME FOR CHANGE presents a global concert event to put girls' and women's issues on the world’s stage. Millions of people will join in THE SOUND OF CHANGE LIVE, to promote Education, Health and Justice for girls and women everywhere.

THE SOUND OF CHANGE LIVE is proudly underwritten by Gucci to ensure that all ticket sales go directly to projects that improve the lives of girls and women around the world.

THE SOUND OF CHANGE LIVE will be broadcast globally, so you can be part of this historic concert event wherever you are. Broadcast details will be included here closer to June 1st.

http://www.chimeforchange.org/concert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.180.166 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done I think we are assuming this to be part of The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour so we won't give it a secondary mention; although the "Chime for Change" campaign is listed. —Jennie | ☎ 14:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it's a philanthropy event I think should be added! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Semantics in lead

This may be very picky, but the lead states that Beyonce 'earned' several awards including a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. But after following the recent adition of Richard Burton's star, it appears that financial stipulations are one of the major factors of obtaining a star on the HWoF. Yes there are minimum requirements that must be reached before you can put an act forward for a star, but is it 'earned'? FruitMonkey (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the sentence:

Knowles' work has earned her numerous awards and accolades, including 17 Grammy Awards, 12 MTV Video Music Awards, and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (as part of Destiny's Child).

I sort of agree with what you're saying; "fame" isn't really something that is considered as an achievement or earned (as this sentence implies), but I suppose it has been adopted as one of the most prominent accolades she has received, and probably wouldn't fit in any where else. —Jennie | ☎ 14:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that they are just suggesting changing "earned" to "received" or something similar. Would get rid of the superfluous her as well.

Knowles' work has received numerous awards and accolades, including 17 Grammy Awards, 12 MTV Video Music Awards, and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (as part of Destiny's Child).

AIRcorn (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed. —Jennie | ☎ 09:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 "The Great Gatsby" film soundtrack

Beyoncé is going to do a Great job covering an Amy Winehouse hit.

E! News can exclusively reveal that the "Single Ladies" hitmaker has teamed up with Andre 3000 for a duet of the late singer's "Back to Black" for the soundtrack of the upcoming remake of The Great Gatsby.

Jay-Z is producing the soundtrack, which will be released by Interscope Records. "It's a very different take on 'Back to Black,'" a record company source said.

This is Beyoncé and Andre 3000 second time working together. They first collaborated on Bey's 2011 single, "Party."

The new flick, directed by Baz Luhrman, stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan and Tobey Maguire. Originally set to be in theaters last Christmas, the release was pushed to this May.

Gatsby will have its world premiere as the opening night film of the Cannes Film Festival on May 15.

http://uk.eonline.com/news/403523/beyonc-covering-amy-winehouse-for-the-great-gatsby http://thehonestyhour.com/2013/04/beyonce-covers-amy-winehouse-for-the-great-gatsby/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 09:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Grown Woman

Grown Woman is NOT the first single. It says so in the source. Why does it say it is in here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.57.68 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My bad! Thought it said the opposite. I've changed it, thank you! —Jennie | ☎ 15:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 and/or Public Image

Beyoncé Named 2013 Honorary Met Ball Chair

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/beyonce-met-gala-2013-honorary-chair_n_3022885.html

Beyoncé has been named honorary chairperson for the Met Ball.

The superstar will join legendary Vogue editor Anna Wintour, designer Riccardo Tisci and actress Rooney Mara in their hosting roles at the annual Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute gala, which this year pays tribute to the Punk movement.

Several invitations emblazoned with Beyoncé's name have already been sent out, according to WWD. The star-studded bash is due to take place on May 6 and the accompanying Punk: Chaos to Couture exhibition will run from May 9 until August 11.

http://news.ph.msn.com/lifestyle/beyonc%C3%A9-named-honorary-met-ball-chair-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello?? Why anyone update this??.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks! —Jennie | ☎ 15:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Assume the album is called Mrs. Carter or wait for confirmation?

There seems to be conflicting ideas about whether this should be included. At the moment, any reference to the it being entitled Mrs. Carter has been removed from the biography (2013: Fifth studio album section), but remains in the Discography section. To ensure consistency, can we come to a consensus on whether to include its mention, or to remove it until official confirmation. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 23:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Tours are commonly, but not always, named after the album, but in this case it's just speculation. If there is a reliable reference that say it is its name, it can be added. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Stone, a reliable music magazine, called it that. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The Mrs Carter Show World Tour

"Bow Down, Bitch" could be misunderstood. [5] She is 're-branding' herself as a wife and a mother. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it has been misunderstood. Another singer mentioned this, could someone find?--Aichik (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)