Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

mariah carey diva of pop

Mariah Carey Diva Of Pop!!!!!!!!!! Mariah carey needs to be a diva of pop.when you think of any famous divas u immediately think of mariah.

What?!?!

Two years, one album and Gaga's all of a sudden "The Queen of Pop"? I'm sorry, but a couple of sources calling her so shouldn't be enough to merit inclusion on the list. I could just as easily find a couple of sources calling Katy Perry the princess of pop even though general opinion on her seems to dictate otherwise. The media at large should be calling Gaga queen of pop in order for her to be deservingly on this list, not just a couple of fanboy journalists. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Pop music has been going for pretty much as long as I've been alive, and the paradigms have been shifting for at least that time. The bottom line for this article is that personal opinions are supremely irrelevant; what matters is that reliable sources have applied those labels, whatever you might think. If you disagree with the reliability of those sources, please say so, but that's the whole basis of neutrality policy here, and nobody's personal opinion is going to override that. Get used to it. Rodhullandemu 00:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion (btw, did I say I don't think she deserves to be called the queen of pop? No, so don't twist my words.) I'm trying to push into the article, it's the fact that she is not known by the media in general as "the queen of pop", whereas the people she happens to be in company with on this list are. If I found just one journalist calling Katy Perry the princess of pop, would she merit inclusion on here? Shouldn't multiple sources count for things such as this? Cause otherwise, every artist can be king/queen/god/goddess of something on this list even if the mainstream media doesn't back it up too much. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually she's growing quite a following among critics (the primary requirement for the article) and mainstream media as the newest Queen of Pop.

• Not a week goes by that she's not in the news for something or other. Her Lollapalooza turn this past weekend confirmed her stature, as if there were any doubt, as America's new Queen of Pop.
• It seems Lady Gaga will wear anything. And so will her fans, who, on Wednesday and Thursday, dressed in their Gaga best for the Queen of Pop's shows at Staples Center.
• Earlier this month, the reigning queen of pop music crossed one threshold and appeared headed over another. Her feats were noted on Wired.com with this snarky headline: “Sign of the Apocalypse: Lady Gaga heads for 10 million Facebook fans.” That 10 million mark, Wired reported, has been crossed only twice: by the late Michael Jackson (14 million) and by the online game “Texas Hold ’Em Poker” (20 million). So Gaga would be the first living person to crack 10 million. And, by the way, the living person she passed on her way to social-networking history was President Barack Obama (9.4 million).
• Lady Gaga is, for now, the reigning queen of pop music. Will she sustain her current level of visibility? Based on the audience's borderline apathy toward a new tune, You and I (performed, naturally, at a flaming grand piano), she might want to make the most of her moment.
• "It wasn't until Lady Gaga unveiled her wildly ambitious Monster Ball Tour that her fame reached monstrous levels. The massive production numbers, augmented by dance troupes, enormous stage props and, of course, dramatic costumes, took her from singer with a pop hit to queen of pop culture faster than you could say, "Ga ga, ooh la la." - Glenn Gamboa. Newsday. Long Island, N.Y.: May 30, 2010. pg. C.2
• "After years of rock domination at the top of the charts, pop music made a healthy comeback last year, thanks to strong sales from Lady Gaga, Cheryl Cole and Lily Allen, according to figures from the BPI, the record label body. As a result of topselling albums from Lady Gaga - the new queen of pop - and strong releases from artists such as Paolo Nutini and Robbie Williams, pop music claimed its biggest share of album sales since 2003. The genre's 29% share was up from 25.3% in 2008." - Alexandra Topping. The Guardian. London (UK): May 10, 2010. pg. 13

There are actually more sources I can cite from online databases/periodicals but I just quoted 6 in addition to the 2 already in the article. As the criteria above states, as long as you can cite references from music critics from major magazines, or other music related authorities, they can be added here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, you got me there. I just assumed most music critics thought of her as a future queen of pop rather than already having arrived at that level. Now you won't hear anymore arguments from me regarding this. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Accually I agree with the user above, almost everybody if refered to the the Queen of Pop. I mean Oprah said Christina Aguilera was the Queen of Pop and yet shes not there. Billboard cover reads 'Katy Perry, the new queen of pop' also Beyoncé isn't even primarily a pop artist. I think this whole title is subject to opnion. I think someone should tidy it up and post only the very nessasary.--CheezeDoodles (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See: Zeitgeist --Mea (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New discussion on criteria

Several current entries only generate red links.
By definition the title cannot be "used in the lede of the artist article" because there is no such article.
As these entries do not meet the above criteria I propose deleting them.
If editors want to reinstate them, I suggest they write the article first, including the nickname in the lede, as per the above criteria.
Arjayay (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved this post only because this should be a new section that can be discussed/archived separately from the standard/resolved criteria that we can leave posted at the top of the page, even after archiving periodically. Secondly, I think there is a major problem with criteria #2 : Only examples should be used where the title is used in the lede of the artist article. Its problematic because the structure of one article should not dictate how another article is written. An honorific not being mentioned in the lede does not invalidate the verifiable sources for the subject. Its also problematic since a number of individuals on this list (which is also mentioned in this article's lede) are know by two or more honorifics, and it may be cumbersome to list them all in the artist's lede (Little Richard, James Brown, Janet Jackson, Madonna, Mary J. Blige). This may be a separate issue altogether from not having red links in the article, but its one that should be addressed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some ledes are already very (too?) long, and am not sure that the nickname needs to be in the lede.
There are, however, some (e.g. currently George Jones) where the nickname does not appear in the article at all.
I think these should be removed, as well as those (already removed) where the person does not have an article at all.
I realise that this has been discussed at some length, but if the "rules" are not being enforced, they are of little use.
I suggest the line

• Only examples should be used where the title is used in the lede of the artist article.
  

is amended to

• Only examples should be used where the title is used, and referenced, in the artist article.
  Arjayay (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable with any dependence on the artist's article. Madonna and R.E.M. are currently featured and don't mention any honorifics, whereas low quality articles do (Little Richard/James Brown). After surviving 4 AfDs, this article should be capable of standing alone on its on merits, esp after all the painful research we've done to use exceptionally qualified sources. Once again, just because the nickname may not appear in the artist's page, it doesn't not invalidate the validity of the source on the subject matter for this page. My suggestion would be that the artist's page is irrelevant and stick to not using red links in this article which is a general guideline for wikipedia. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm proposing a relatively minor change to the agreed "Criteria for inclusion" given at the top of this page

- that the nickname doesn't have to be in the lede of the artist's article, provided it is in the article.

The Bookkeeper is proposing a much larger change

- that the nickname doesn't have to be in the artist's article at all.

If the nickname is used regularly, it should already be in the artist's article. If it is not used regularly, does it deserve being included in this list? - IMHO no.
I am NOT suggesting that the nickname does not need to be referenced on this page, if it is referenced in the article, the references on this page are still essential.
I suggested the nickname is not just included in the artist's article, but also referenced, for two reasons:-
a) to deter people from just thowing the nick name into the artist's article, to justify its existence here
b) so editors familiar with the artist (who may well not follow this list) can consider the validity of the nickname.
If requiring a reference for the nickname in the artist's article is seen as excessive, I am happy to drop the idea.
However, I believe that changing from a requirement that the nickname is in the lede, to no requirement for it to be in the article at all, is a step too far
Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What deters editors from simply throwing the throwing an artists name here for any given reason is the validity of the sources they are using. Editors watching this article continually delete entries based on poor sources. List of best-selling music artists, List of best-selling music artists in the United States and other similar lists are examples of articles that may exist and have no link on an individual artists page (again, depending on the quality of the article and if any editors are routinely involved in editing it). My overall point is that such heavy dependence on what one article does based on one that already exists, routinely watched/edited by different sets of editors can be counterproductive. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest an editor would throw an artist's name in here; I suggested that, if we did not require a reference in the artist's article, they could just throw it in the artist's article to justify its existence here.
As stated above, I am happy to drop the idea of requiring a reference for the nickname in the artist's article.
However, I still believe that:-

1. The current requirement that the nickname is in the lede is excessive.
   (It is not being enforced, so is not actually a requirement)
2. The nickname should be in the artist's article.
   If the name is so rarely used about an artist, that it is not in their article, it does not merit inclusion in this list.
3. Changing from a requirement that the nickname is in the lede, to no requirement for it to be in the article at all, is a step too far.

The "Criteria for inclusion" were thrashed out by several editors, over a period of time.
We both believe the criteria are too strict, but cannot agree how loose they should be.
We obviously need other editors' opinions.
Arjayay (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition

How about adding the "grandfather of funk" title for George Clinton? May be similar to James Brown's title/status, but music writers, columnists, and musicians have referred to him as that and it appears a lot searching it on Google. Here are some sources, although I'm not sure up to what standard the citation for this article should be: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Dan56 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan56 asked about this on my talkpage, as no-one has answered him here.
This is a shame, as he is trying to play by the rules rather than banging it on the page, and having it deleted.
1 = Facebook - a blog, not a reliable source (see WP:RS)
2 = Blender - appears to be a blog
3 = Broken link
4 = Google Books "The Fame Game: How to Make the Most of Your 15 Minutes" - no mention of "grandfather of funk"
5 = Google Books "Saludos Hispanos" (limited circulation magazine) does appear on P 76
6 = Guardian - This one seems OK.
No mention of it at all in the George Clinton article, let alone in the lede, see "Criteria for inclusion" above.
IMHO Dan - no, you need better sources
Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

1 is not facebook but an article by WDEF-TV, "The Fame Game: How to Make the Most of Your 15 Minutes" mentions it on pg 95, I dont see how Blender's site is a blog, and here is a cache of the Riverdales Press's article "Grandfather of funk: George Clinton electrifies Lehman audience". Dan56 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• "It's tough to say whether to call 1989 the Year of the Geezer, the Year of the Comeback or the Year of the Rehash. Forget the '60s rockers selling out the stadiums. This weekend, San Francisco's nightlife circuit was in the throes of a full-on '70s pop music revival. On Friday night, it was a triple threat with George Clinton - Grandfather of Funk - heading up a new edition of his P-Funk Allstars at a packed Warfield Theater; Willy de Ville baring his romantic barrio soul and recreating the switchblade rock of Mink de Ville's new-wave heyday at Slim's; and Joe Strummer evoking those punky days of yesteryear at the I Beam." by Michael Snyder, Chronicle Staff Writer. "CLINTON AND STRUMMER / A Wild Weekend of '70s Pop". San Francisco Chronicle. Nov 20, 1989. pg. F.3

• "In May, the Crossroads stage opened with Robert Randolph and the Family Band, a high-energy combination of steel guitar and gospel. The second visitor was George Clinton, the grandfather of funk himself, so you get the picture. The stage is eclectic and hip, perfect for an urban explorer with handy earplugs." by John Lofflin. "K.C.'s Crossroads Arts District begs to be explored" Veterinary Economics. Montvale: Jul 2007. pg. 11

• " George Clinton figures the music industry wanted him gone a long time ago. But the grandfather of funk keeps winning over new generations in his quest to forge one nation under a groove. Clinton, 65, who is celebrating 50 years in the business, became an icon in the '70s and '80s with Parliament-Funkadelic, and the hip- hop generation has made the product of those aggregations some of the most sampled music in history. Now he and the P-Funk All Stars are back with How Late Do U Have 2BB4UR Absent?, his first new album in nearly a decade." by Steve Jones. "George Clinton, still getting down after 50 years ; Father of funk has new album, anniversary tour". USA TODAY. Oct 31, 2005. pg. D.8

1st and 3rd are national publications written by music critics. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.
Ben - do you want to include this in the list before someone else beats you to it?
Arjayay (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to properly add this to the list, though. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing for no reason

Today I added another "honorific nickname". "The Voice" for Whitney Houston and I have noticed that it has been removed no more than an hour after I added it. There is no need for it she is commonly referred to as this and the source I used was one from the Sunday Times and is a very reliable source. If Bruce Springstein can have the "The Boss" Whitney can surely have "The Voice". Whoever removed it please do not again as there is no need for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.152.31 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A reason was supplied in the edit summary. It is not a honorific, but just a nickname.--SabreBD (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Spanish "Pop Royalty"

In Spain, the singer Natalia Rodriguez, better known as Natalia, is frequently referred to as the Princess of Spanish Pop (in Spanish: "La princesa del pop español"). This article is completely biased towards English speaking countries, don't forget Spain! 81.147.85.161 (talk)Gordonbrownfan81.147.85.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

You have to remember that this is the English language Wikipedia, and articles are bound to reflect that. Ask yourself what a similar article would look like on the Spanish Wikipedia? However, if there are adequate sources for non-English artists supporting an honorific title, there's no problem with their inclusion here, and there are several, if not many, such artists listed here. It's not a deliberate exclusion of non-US/UK/AUS artists, by any means. Rodhullandemu 00:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I look the page, and the're not Latin Pop Royalty (except Gloria Estefan). The King of Latin Pop is not Juan Gabriel; is Ricky Martin. Prince of Latin Pop: Juanes Princess of Latin Pop: Shakira. Somebody look for a source to proof that what i say is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.174.183 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.163.32.157, 12 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

69.163.32.157 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

why was Freddie's title "God of Rock" removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.227.242 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Lil Jon, the King of Crunk?

Where is Lil Jon on the list? He is considered the king of crunk, here is a reference if I need one. --173.218.170.74 (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from hinatajr232, 10 November 2010

121.96.235.136 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC) {{edit semi-protected}} |Daughter of Redemption||Britney Spears ||US

Not done: A clear, reliable and verifiable source must be provided that indicates widespread usage (e.g. "Elvis Presley, widely known as the King of Rock and Roll...". This means that it must be an actual title and cannot be a general reference or figure of speech. Appropriate sources include major authorities on popular music (including All music, Rolling Stone and NME, refereed books and journals, reputable national newspapers and appropriate specialist music publications. Self-published sources and the products of record companies are not considered reliable. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rivers Cuomo

Weezer Frontman has been called the "Godfather of Emo" before in an article I belive I read on wikipedia. It may have been on the his own article or on the album Pinkerton's article or if I am incorrect check www.weezerpedia.com on the article "emo". If the sorce is found I request him being added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.242.96 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It will be fine as long as you can produce a WP:reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.208.10.15, 27 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

tnx 82.208.10.15 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please state what you would like changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

king of rap

Why Eminem not on king of rap ? he is skillful of rap False Please add eminem to king of rap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alde154 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable reference that calls him that? --Jayron32 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

BT (musician)

BT has been called "the Prince of Dance Music" though I can't find the original source for that, but he pioneered trance. Anybody know where that title came from? --134.193.112.62 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Madonna

I don't see why Madonna has to be under 'Princess of Pop'? The citation for this nickname is from the year 1985. Obviously she has been promoted to 'Queen of Pop' during more recent years. Furthermore I would like to express my concern about the other people listed under 'Queen of Pop'. Maybe one or two references aren't enough to form a decent analysis of pop culture? And if an article mentions a 'FUTURE' queen of pop, it doesn't mean she's already Queen of Pop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.2.209 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to have Madonna's name in bold letters due to the fact that she is most often called the 'Queen of Pop'. Furthermore, she has sold the most copies and she has had the longest career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.103.112 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

King of Rock

DMC is the King of Rock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.110.90 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Judy Garland

wasn't her nickname The World's Greatest Entertainer --98.226.9.223 (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

USURPATION OF GLADYS KNIGHT'S EMPRESS OF SOUL TITLE

If you look at the history of the Empress of Soul title, you will see that it is very contentious. After much debate and research here on Wikipedia, it was determined that there were "hundreds" of sources for Gladys Knight as the Empress of Soul, including the Society of Singers' official declaration of Gladys as the Empress of Soul, September 10, 2007, on the occasion of presenting her with the 16th Annual Ella Award. Additionally, the references to Gladys as the Empress of Soul are sourced back to the 60's. One off the cuff reference by a partisan of Mary J. Blige does not warrant including her next to Gladys. This is not in keeping with Wiki's standards, and Mary 's name should be removed immediately!!!Comprendo (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Please note that Gladys is known THROUGHOUT THE WORLD as the EMPRESS OF SOUL. Check out news accounts in South Africa and Great Britain, Australia, etc. to get an idea of how widespread her renown is. Mary J. Blige doesn't approximate Gladys' being known as the Empress of Soul; and a passing reference is insufficient to allow her to be credited with that title.Comprendo (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) It should be noted one of the so-called references to Mary J. Blige as such is a general reference to "when it comes to the empresses of soul." This is not even a reference to Mary as the Empress of Soul. I can find hundreds of articles referring to the general "queens of soul." Would you allow that every artist referred to in such a general statement should be listed along with Aretha Franklin as the Queen of Soul? Of course not!! Similarly, Mary J. Blige should not be listed as the Empress of Soul. However, if you persist in leaving Mary J. Blige listed along with Gladys, by your own standard, I can reasonably list every singer referred to as one the queens of soul along with Aretha Franklin. Though I believe that would clearly lower the standard for Wikipedia, I intend to do that as YOU Rodhullandemu have set such a standard!!!!Comprendo (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please remove Mary J. Blige's name from the Empress of Soul category?{{helpme}}Comprendo (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Does not need a "help me" - the page is not protected - we don't edit for you, you can do it yourself.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have suggested that Comprendo bring this discussion here for the following reasons:

1. The threshold for inclusion here is verifiability not truth;
2. Comprendo's argument ignores the fact that the same title may be attributed to different artists, as is evident from the article as it stands;
3. There is no "entitlement to" or "ownership of" a title as long as it is reliably sourced
4. It follows that sheer weight of such sources, measured in numbers, cannot exclude other artists from being described by the same title
5. It further follows that the idea of "usurpation" of a title is a ridiculous concept
6. By analogy with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, how other artists are described is irrelevant
7. There has been some minor edit warring as to the inclusion of Mary J. Blige as "Empress of Soul", and that is now sourced twice.
8. There has been no previous discussion as to whether the title "Empress of Soul" "belongs" "exclusively" to Gladys Knight.
9. The discussion should therefore concentrate on whether those sources, or any others which might exist, are adequate to support inclusion here. I'll leave it there for other interested editors to develop consensus. Rodhullandemu 20:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of Rodhullandemu's points. Most importantly, nicknames are not exclusive and the attribution is reliably sourced. Verifiability is the only real criteria. It should stay.--SabreBD (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. Verifiability is what sets the precedent. Look through this list very carefully, there are plenty of nicknames which are shared by numerous artists. Personal opinions as to whether or not they actually deserve them are irrelevant here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To all three 'editors' above, the criteria you have all agreed to above is that the title should be in 'common use'...hence, if Mary is only referred to in 2 articles (only one I can see...the 'Billboard article'), as the empress, but is not referred to the 'empress' in common usage then this goes against the criteria of your article for inclusion. Am I missing something? Anyone can call an artist something, but if it doesn't become commonly used i.e. when being introduced at current AMA or Soul Train awards when announcing her, then how can this be a commonly used title? Can you please respond appropriately to my argument? Cheers...ColeCole Hayes (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me Rohnhjones, however I tried to edit this page in the first instance with a comment as to why I believed it to be right, however the edit was promptly undone. Hence, without the administrators' agreement, it does not appear right for me or anyone else to edit (delete something) again, as this would just create back and forth editing, which is unhelpful. Cheers...Cole Cole Hayes (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Gladys Knight and Mary J Blige

To the editor/s,

I wish to comment/discuss on why I believe the honorific title of Empress of Soul to Mary J Blige should be remove from the above wiki page:

1. I believe the title/s should be in common use. If you google 'the empress of soul' you will get 1000's of references to Gladys Knight, however if you google "the empress of soul mary j blige' the 1st link will be from a the 2009 Billboard article as cited in the wiki page, the 2nd link will be the wiki page itself, and the rest all refer to Gladys Knight or links that include Gladys Knight as The Empress of Soul, and Mary J. Blige.

I see there has been a 2nd citation added today, however other than repeats of the Billboard article you will be hard pressed to find another reference on google. I have seen another article saying Aretha Franklin is now the empress rather than the queen, but again, no-one calls miss Franklin by that title in common usage.

There is so much media out there nowadays that all sorts of things may be said of any artist. However, I think it's when people start to refer to that person with that title in common usage, and especially when the title is recognized at music award, or on the artists websites and tours etc, that it becomes and 'honorific' title.

In the spirit of the wiki article, I believe if you added in every title with only a couple of references available, the page would then have to be enormous, and would therefore defeat the spirit of the page.

2. Although Mary has one 9 Grammy awards and countless other awards such as Soul Train awards (the 2 artists in question are my favorites), my belief is she has never been referred to as The Empress of Soul at these awards (most usually referred to as the "Queen of Hip Hop Soul"), and has never referred to herself with that title on her website.

I think the comments above should be all that is needed to convince the editors of this page. However, I am of course happy to discuss further if you wish to.

Lastly, if you will not remove the title reference, may I edit the page with the 1000's of sources to Gladys, so at least people may realize how 'infrequent' that title is to Mary? I understand that an artist doesn't 'own' their title, however if so few people refer to that title, can someone else truly have it?

Many thanks...Cole

Cole Hayes (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As a final word may I give the following link to the Essence Music Festival, which has both Artists billed with their honorific nick-names? My belief is that if Mary believed she was the Empress, she would not have left the title to Gladys. I believe both artists received Essence Awards.

http://www.essencemusicfestival.com/artists.html

Cheers...Cole

Cole Hayes (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Cole Hayes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. Please keep all conversation in the one thread; This disjointed style of conversation makes it very difficult for other editors to reply in a structured manner.
2. Please see my point #4 above, and address it. It isn't, nor should be, about weight of numbers. It's about the sources.
3. Is this the only registered account you have on Wikipedia? You seem only to have come here very recently, and only edited on this narrow topic. Rodhullandemu 22:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rodhullandemu,

Answers: 1. I think I am responding correctly now? 2. I have answered below under the '...#4 ...' topic. Please respond to my comments at your earliest convenience. 3. I have tried to answer your 'sock puppet' trial you started. Hopefully I did it in the right place...ahhh! I am having trouble getting up to speed. In answer to here though, yes this is my only account (i.e. Cole Hayes). I also don't have the 'exact same agenda' of 'Comprendo'. We are different people and I am not sure if they are fans of Mary like me (maybe though...?)

I would like to also discuss this whole 'sock puppetry' thing here. I do not understand why my point of view should be considered sock puppetry? The editors responding to my and Comprehendo's comments are also expressing the same views, however I would not assume they are 'puppets' because they agree on a point... We are talking about 'consensus', which is not necessarily an 'organized attack'. Believe me when I say I don't believe I have anywhere near as much knowledge of Gladys as Comprehendo, as I only watch her on You Tube (for now...lol), and I think I have more knowledge on Mary (I have her albums)...but we both have the same view on a small topic...I am not arguing about Mary's other titles (which I have heard all mentioned)...if it were u[p to me I would have her named the "Goddess of Soul", etc, but that is not a common name for her unfortunately, and I am not in the business, so I cannot create this title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Hayes (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Cole Hayes (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-performer section.

How about adding a section, albeit probably very small, for people like The Professor of Pop. There must be others; managers, DJ's etc. Just a thought. Mannafredo (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is probably an arguement for this, given that they could be considered "in" popular music. But are there anymore of these? It doesnt seem worth having a section for only 1 or 2.--SabreBD (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Addressing Rodhullandemu's point number 4

Rodhullandemu's assertion about "weight of numbers" reveals that he is either ignorant of Wiki's precedents with respect citations for honorific names, ignorant of Wiki's history with respect The Empress of Soul title or that Wiki's standards are written in sand and subject to the whims of Wiki's editors. I had a long and on-going "discussion" with Wiki editors concerning Gladys' title as Empress of Soul. Wiki's position then was that a google search of Empress of soul revealed only about 90 references to Gladys knight. For some time, that "number" was deemed insufficient to attribute that title to Gladys. Of course now there are thousands of references to Gladys as The Empress of Soul; it is worldwide and settled. But it should be noted one of the so-called references to Mary J. Blige as such is a general reference to "when it comes to the empresses of soul." This is not even a reference to Mary as the Empress of Soul, just an off-the-cuff remark. I can find hundreds of articles referring to the general "queens of soul." Would you allow that every artist referred to in such a general statement should be listed along with Aretha Franklin as the Queen of Soul? Of course not!! Similarly, Mary J. Blige should not be listed as the Empress of Soul. However, if you persist in leaving Mary J. Blige listed along with Gladys, by your own standard, I can reasonably list every singer referred to as one the queens of soul along with Aretha Franklin. Though I believe that would clearly lower the standard for Wikipedia, I intend to do that as YOU Rodhullandemu have set such a standard!!!! I trust Wiki editors have no problem with that and would not delete such changes?!Comprendo (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here and try to use more temperate language. I have a long association with this article both as editor and administrator, and the de facto standard which seems to have arisen is that one reference is adequate, but two are preferred. Any greater number would be unnecessary. I am not disputing that there are thousand of references to Gladys Knight as "Empress of Soul"- that is not the issue. However, we have at least one reference also describing Mary J. Blige with the same title. We would end up with a ridiculous situation if relative numbers of sources were used to determine such issues. However, I have not seen any discussion anywhere about this:

I had a long and on-going "discussion" with Wiki editors concerning Gladys' title as Empress of Soul. Wiki's position then was that a google search of Empress of soul revealed only about 90 references to Gladys knight. For some time, that "number" was deemed insufficient to attribute that title to Gladys.

Perhaps you could point me at one? Meanwhile, discussions are much easier to follow if they are properly threaded; please see virtually any discussion on any talk page to see how this is supposed to happen. Also, it would help if you would stop repeating yourself; once the point is made, it's unhelpful to repeat it almost verbatim. Rodhullandemu 22:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As another counter point: IF there were accurate sources describing other female artists as the "Queen of Soul" they can just as easily be listed here as well. I haven't come across any as of yet, but if an artist is mentioned by music critics in a number of major publications as the "Queen of Soul", we as editors, are not going to omit them simply because they aren't Franklin. Dusty Springfield is the "White Queen of Soul" which (in my opinion) is essentially the same thing. Obviously Franklin (while extraordinarily talented) is not the only woman in the world to have an impact on soul music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

Interestingly enough I just found a variety of sources naming Teena Marie the "Ivory Queen of Soul". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

Hello all, in addressing Point 4: In the criteria for inclusion at the top of this discussion, "The names listed must be honorific and not just nicknames (e.g. "Queen of Soul" and not just "Pistol Pete") and must be a common alias of the artist (being widely regarded as the Father of a sub-genre is not the same as routinely being called, the Father of...)" If there is only one cited reference (in this case a magazine article) and the title is not a common alias of the artist, even since the articles publication, does then inclusion of Mary J Blige as "Empress of Soul" not go against the 1st listed criteria of this wiki article? I am a bit disturbed that rather than answering my points, such as my citation of both Mary as "Queen of Hip Hop Soul" and Gladys as "Empress of Soul" in the billing of the Essence Awards (which I think backs up my point about 'common alias') I was targeted as a 'sock puppet' as I do not get on the internet every day? I am of course responding to the sock puppet acusation (I hope I have done it right - can someone please tell me if my comments have been put in correctly? Many thanks in advance...

Cheers...Cole Cole Hayes (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No it fits the criteria. The reference given from a reliable source states that she has gained "sobriquets along the way" including "the Empress of Soul". This is exactly what a reference needs to be, stating that the nickname is in use.--SabreBD (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But, where were the citations in the article, and if there are no other references available, then how can this be considered fact? You say that it should be in 'common use', however you say that one citation 'saying' that it is used is enough? This is the only reference to this title I can find on google of 'The empress of soul Mary j Blige". I cannot comprehend your argument? Can you explain further? If this was in common use as the Billboard article stated, then why can't we find other references to this title? Surely if it was a common honorific title, we could find references other than one article? She has been around for 20 years...Cheers...Cole Cole Hayes (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus (thus far) is that the nickname itself must be in common use. The nickname "Empress of Soul" itself is in use, primarily (and obviously) because of Knight. However, just as "King of Rock and Roll" or "Queen of Pop", it has been attributed to another artist, in this case, Blige. More importantly, part of the criteria is that the nickname has been attributed to her by two music critics by two major publications - one of which (Billboard) is an authority in the music industry in and of itself. Those sources (which again, are considered authoritative) have expressed that Blige has earned the nickname. Wikipedia is not concerned with truth: that is, wikipedia does not exist to determine what is true or what is not, only to verify what has been made public knowledge. We can verify these publications have made these statements about Blige because they are in print. We can read these statements to verify they exist. That is what matters, not whether or not we believe these statements hold value in our own personal opinion. Also, google is not the only source of information. As a college student I have access to proquest which archives newspapers, journals and other periodicals dating back to 1980. A majority of the references I've added to this article over the past year have primarily been though data archives which can't be accessed via web unless you subscribe to these databases or have access through work or school. Academic encyclopedias (especially those focused on the music industry) (see google books) also fit within the criteria. And to be clear: we've never set and exact number of how many citations an artist needs to be included in this list. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation. It was very helpful in understanding your views and some wiki ideas, etc. I am however still a bit confused by: 1. The current 'inclusion criteria' of this page has the wording "...must be a common alias of the artist..." and "(...routinely being called The Father of....)" whereas you state "Consensus (thus far) is that the nickname itself must be in common use." These statements appear to be contradictory, in that the criteria refers to 'alias of the artist' (i.e. in this case common use of 'The Empress of Soul: Gladys Knight') and the consensus (thus far) to 'the nickname itself' (i.e. just "The Empress of Soul"). 2. I also think that only 'one or two' citations necessary and the criteria of common use and routinely being called are also contradictory, as something that occurs once (or say thrice) in a 20 or 60 year career cannot be either 'common' or 'routine'? I.e. Mary is not commonly or routinely called The Emmpress of Soul, but is in fact (many references available) commonly and routinely called "The Queen of Hip Hop Soul: MJB".

May I suggest then, the following possible actions in order to remove the contradictions? 1. Decide on whether the 'consensus (thus far)' or the stated criteria for inclusion of an honorific nickname is correct? (nickname itself or alias of the artist). If the criteria is correct, then the reference in question should be deleted, or visa versa the criteria should be re-worded to suit the consensus (thus far). 2. Decide on whether '1,2,3..100' references are required to equal the criteria of 'common' and 'routine' and state this value within the criteria e.g. "..common (i.e. greater than 5 references) use...". If less than the accepted 'minimum number of references' are available then an honorific tile should be removed from an artist. You state that no consensus has been reached yet? I remember an editor mentioning 1 is sufficient but 2 is best? In this the criteria should refer refer to '2' as the number meant by common/routine in the criteria. Although my personal opinion is that 2/3 is not common/routine over a 20 year career.

Another suggestion I would make for inclusion to this article is to simply include years of when the title has been used? For example you could say Aretha Franklin: Queen of Soul (1968-current), MJB: Queen of Hip Hop Soul (1992-current)? I would link this to years of the earliest and latest citations. The citations could then be changed/added if an earlier citation is found.

Many thanks for considering these points of discussion. Cheers...Cole Cole Hayes (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason we've never determined an exact number of citations is because editors with a particular agenda will always try to increase the number required to exclude a certain artist they don't care for. "Queen of Pop" (see above sections "What?!" and "Madonna") in this list would be the best example. This article typically uses 1-3 citations, then someone comes along who simply doesn't "like" Lady Gaga and then they request we increase the number to (lets say) 10 to make sure its more difficult or impossible to include her. That same scenario has been played out on this article with a number of artists. Also, having more than 3 citations for any artists is cumbersome for the visual display of this article. If you have three authoritative sources - major publications or authoritative music publications, with commentary by music critics or other scholarly individuals on the music industry or respectable journalists, who adequately apply the nickname within the proper context - why clutter the page with more than 3? I have only seen editor request more when they have a personal vedetta against a particular artist which violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Secondly routinely or commonly are what I consider to be subjective. Are we saying they are referenced daily? weekly? monthly? yearly? or for a specific number of years? Its all subject to personal opinion, which again, is not what wikipedia is trying to determine, only what has been verified as public knowledge. Generally (see Wikipedia:Verify#Reliable_sources) wikipedia does not require a specific amount of citations to any particular claim - only that the source being used is authoritative: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability. So as long as the source being used in the article is reliable, even 1 should be, by default, sufficient, but we've always included at least 2 (thus far 3 max) to ease tensions.

Lastly, as I've pointed out, the world wide web (google, yahoo, etc) is not the only source of information, and usually does not reflect reliable sources unless the news, publication or periodical has a web site - and even then, most web sites now archive their news pieces past a certain date and will not allow web access unless you want to pay for it. In other words, if you try to set a high number of citations (lets say 20) the average editor will probably not be able to find that many for any artist with the notable exceptions of Elvis or Michael Jackson using only the web (you might get 1000 hits, but how many of those are fan sites/unreliable source and how many are authoritative sources as we've defined previously?). Also, Michael Jackson and Aretha Fraklin are the only two artists on the entire list where there has been evidence of a literal date where the nickname was first used (and I've done a bulk of the research on this article with a few other editors), so trying to pin down a time period (Aretha Franklin: Queen of Soul (1968-current) ) would be next to impossible for about 90% people on this list - and yet this list uses only authoritative sources. In a nutshell, too many requirement would actually reduce the quality of the article rather than improve it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must say I really appreciate your in depth reply! I have found value from most of your points, and as much as I don't agree with some of your 'rules' of the article, you cannot argue against rules, only when you think the rules are being broken. However, I think we could add a column for the years as I explained very easily. This does not have to be a requirement, just extra information that editors could update along the way. It may make sense to have an end date as current if the artist is still alive or a date of death (i.e. for Celia Cruz et al) who I am also a huge fan personally. If an earlier citation is found we could simply replace the other citation rather than too many citations? Or maybe just a birth date would be easier rather than first cited thing? Anyway, I am actually a huge fan of Mary J Blige and have definitely heard her called the queen of RNB etc especially in the early days, so I am not going to keep arguing about the empress title. I also believe we should add the 1-3 citations into the criteria above so we can avoid these issues in the future! Please let me know your views, and whether I should add this comment for 'new discussion' so other editors may decide to way in. Cole Hayes (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Cheers...Cole

Katy Perry the Princess of Pop

Please add Katy Perry as Princess of Pop, just search in google about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.9.186 (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's correct, add it yourself - it's easy. Mannafredo (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey please add Elton John

Bbc said Elton John is the Flamboyant King of Pop .. well actually some of trusted source said Elton John is also King of Pop, but since most of people said it's Michael Jackson is the King of Pop, i think Flamboyant King of Pop is okay..will you add Elton John in this article? its difficult since the article has been protected. the link > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4044783.stm Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.11.48 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Add Christina Aguilera to Queen Of Pop!!

Christina Aguilera deserves to be added as a Queen Of Pop!!! This is not fair she achived soo much in her successful career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.160.58 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Get a reputable source saying she belongs there, and it will happen. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Madonna & Lady Gaga

Madonna definitely doesn't fall under the "Princess of Pop" category. Everyone is aware of her status as the queen. And Lady Gaga has been addressed as a "Princess of pop" on several occasions.

"List of" no longer in title

Why is "List of" no longer a part of this article's title? I mean, from what I can see, this article is still a list. Was "List of" removed just to help keep it from being nominated for deletion again? Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please insert Christina Aguilera as Queen Of Pop

{{edit semi-protected}} Please insert Christina Aguilera in the queen of pop category

Christina Aguilera is sometimes referred as queen of pop.

If Beyonce can be in this category, then Christina Aguilera can be there too, since she has sold many more albums as "solo artist" and is the best singles seller of the past decade according to Billboard, behind Madonna (source: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/decadeendcharts/2009/singles-sales-artists ).

She has sold 46 million albums, with just 3 studio english albums and some minor market albums, and she's in the top 5 of the famale solo artists who sold more albums in US the past decade ( 00's ) (source: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/decadeendcharts/2009/billboard-200-artists )

here more sources and receipts:

http://popdirt.com/christina-aguilera-proves-shes-queen-of-pop/21601/

http://blogs.chron.com/handstamp/archives/2007/02/christina_aguil_1.html

OPRAH SHOW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vy8N1ebtnY ( In this video there's a part where they say Christin Aguilera is a pop queen )

Here: http://bellapetite.com/a-petite-celebration-of-oprah%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Co%E2%80%9D-magazine-10th-anniversary.html

INSTYLE MAGAZINE SCAN: http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa366/DivineChristina/187972058.jpg

MARIE CLAIRE MAGAZINE: http://i47.tinypic.com/erhpxx.jpg ( http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/42596877.html )

ADDITIONAL: painting called "pop queen xtina" made by an artist: http://i55.tinypic.com/14tltnl.jpg

http://www.olsen-twins-news.com/christina-aguilera-i-really-admire-rihanna-148299/

√

— Preceding unsigned comment added by S3pped (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 

S3pped (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. First, the vast majority of those are not reliable sources--none of the pictures, blogs, or youtube. Furthemore, being called a "pop queen" is actually different, and sounds less like a title and more like a descriptive phrase. Please provide just one or two reliable sources that actually use the phrase "Queen of pop" and then it can be added.

Qwyrxian (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Insert Christina Aguilera in the "queen of pop" category

{{edit semi-protected}}

specifically, please... insert Christina in the "queen of pop" category.

sources:

http://popdirt.com/christina-aguilera-proves-shes-queen-of-pop/21601/

http://www.olsen-twins-news.com/christina-aguilera-i-really-admire-rihanna-148299/

Ok, I think those two sources are sufficient. Thanks you very much!

S3pped (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, none of these are reliable sources. Please refer to the criteria at the top of this page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And per above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.129.37.42, 28 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Aaliayh was also known as Queen of R&B. It's even on her imdb page.

74.129.37.42 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 Declined IMDB isn't regarded as a reliable source for this, as it is user-written. Please provide better sources. (PS: One is OK, but two are generally considered to be acceptable here) Rodhullandemu 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a video on youtube where she is introduced as the new Queen Of R&B.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5ugo7vx0g&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.37.42 (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Aaliyah and Beyonce are know as Queen of Urban Pop as well. I'll come back with some source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.37.42 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Lear

According with those sources she was a disco queen:1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So, for this singer?--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Added based on the 2002 book. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It was confirmed on MTV the she was the new Queen of R&B. How is that not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.4.118 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.97.117.251, 31 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} PLEASE INSERT THIS IN THE HONORIFIC TITLES IN POPULAR MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRITNEY SPEARS is the REAL QUEEN OF POP base on peoples choice

BRITNEY SPEARS is the QUEEN OF MUSIC VIDEO

BRITNEY SPEARS IS THE GODDESS OF POP and base on peoples choice she is the goddess of pop

BRITNEY SPEARS IS THE QUEEN OF REINVENTION [1], 1.Say what you will about Britney Spears but if anyone is the new queen of reinvention it is her. The former teen queen may have had a hectic year filled with drama and controversy but she’s putting it all aside and focusing on her music. After the darker and lackluster album “Blackout,” Spears returns to her roots with “Circus.” With its deeply personal lyrics and bumping beats this is the album Spears fans have been waiting for and even fans of pop should find something even if they aren’t fans. [2] 2.Britney Spears slay Christina Aguilera]

121.97.117.251 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

All, bar one, are blogs/social media, and the other's unreliable anyway.  狐 FOX  21:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Under "Group titles" - add:

Title: That little ol' band from Texas
Artist: ZZ Top
Country: US
Source: http://www.zztop.com/zznetmaster/index.html (top of page)

 Declined zztop.com is not independant of ZZ Top. "That little ol' band from Texas" is not really honorific.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Man, you're strict. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're sure, but additional evidence to the contrary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZZ_Top (ck first sentence)
http://rockhall.com/inductees/zz-top/bio/ (ck first sentence) pinballwizard96 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely well-sourced that they are known by the title, but it's not really honorific in the way intended by the article. — Bility (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Its a nickname, but not all nicknames are honorifics.--SabreBD (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Chuck Brown as the Godfather of Go-Go

He really needs to be recognized as such. This is a style of music from Washington, DC. Check the wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Brown Here are citations to use: http://books.google.com/books?id=oNNqANFYeTcC&pg=PA75&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10110010 http://www.windmeupchuck.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.47.226 (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It was confirmed on MTV the that Aaliyah was the new Queen of R&B. How is that not reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.4.118 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

BoA - Queen of Korean Pop Music

She recently entitled as the Queen of Korean Pop Music from one of the yearly Hallyu awarding ceremony which is the '25th Golden Disk Awards'. And also, she entitled that title from the major Korean online paparazzi/talk website/s which is 'allkpop.com', 'Koreaboo', 'Kpoplive' and 'MTV-Korea'. Her mother wrote a Korean book titled 'The Golden Rule', she stated and confirmed that BoA is in the rightful place to be called the 'Queen of K-Pop'. here are the source/s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odSfiN9ZQG4, http://mtvk.com/videos/boa-game/, http://www.allkpop.com/2011/03/way-back-wednesday-boa-the-queen-of-k-pop, http://blog.mtviggy.com/2010/08/06/boa-storms-onto-music-bank-with-hurricane-venus-and-dangerous/, http://www.koreaboo.com/index.html/_/general/boas-mother-speaks-out-on-why-boa-chose-sm-r734, http://www.kpoplive.com/2010/12/02/boa-is-beyond-venus-for-highcut-magazine/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.72.65 (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8