Talk:Beyoncé

Featured articleBeyoncé is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 22, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 30, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 5, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 20, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
September 22, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
May 24, 2025Good article reassessmentKept
July 5, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
August 9, 2025Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 4, 2021, September 4, 2022, December 13, 2023, and September 4, 2025.
Current status: Featured article

Lead image???

You guys did her dirty. Her old image is more appropriate and less scary than the current one. Can we please change it back?

The old image, the one before the current one.
The much older one

Lililolol (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i’d have to agree, the old image before the current one is by far more flattering than the current. i don’t think we should use the much older one since it’s already been used in the article 750h+ 00:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FA potential

Hi talk page watchers: after reviewing this article at GAR, I think this has the completeness necessary to become a featured article. However, some fixing up and checks need to be done before the article can be nominated at WP:FAC. If promoted in time, this could run as WP:TFA on Sep 4, 2026, Beyonce's 45th birthday. Here's what I think needs to be done before an FAC:

  • The article, at over 10,000 words, is WP:TOOBIG. Off-topic, redundant, or too detailed information will need to be cut. I can help with this.
  • This is a popular article, so lots of different editors have added sources: all of them will need to be checked to ensure that the article prose is verified by the source text. This task can be split by different editors.
  • Lower-quality sources should be replaced by higher-quality sources. Since there are so many sources written about her, I don't think the article needs many primary sources or low-quality news sources. If multiple sources are supporting the same information, the lower-quality sources can be removed.
  • A check for high-quality sources should be conducted in WP:LIBRARY and Google Scholar. High-quality sources include publications from univeristy presses and academic, peer-reviewed journals. If this source verifies the same information as a news source, then the lower-quality news source can be replaced.
  • During the above source checks, editors can also check to ensure that the article is "complete" and no major aspects of her biography are missing. Since this article is already over the recommended word count (per TOOBIG), I don't think this will be a large barrier.
  • The lead and infobox will need to be checked to ensure that all inforamtion in supported in the article body or cited. I would prefer that most of the citations are removed from those sections as unnecessary.
  • The whole article should go through a copy-edit for spelling, grammar and prose. This can be done by multiple editors and noted below.

Are editors interested in bringing this article to FAC? Z1720 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally decline to make such a preparation, but wish luck to whoever pursues FAC here, and nevertheless I should note that one shouldn't blindly assume a page needs reduction solely based on word count. There have been times when editors carelessly remove important details in a misguided attempt to keep things under a certain size or word count, showing no concern for anything else. Take some time to assess the article's actual content before cutting things out. Furthermore, the page you linked says things above 9K words "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Ms. Knowles could potentially be one of those cases. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earth, one of Wikipedia's featured articles, is under 9,000 words. After doing some trimming today, I found many phrases with promotional text, announcements about things (usually not needed) or redundancy. I think there is other text that can be trimmed. If anything is removed that others think shouldn't be, they can start a discussion here. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 and SNUGGUMS: i actually did want to make this an FA (im the second largest contributor to the article and the one who did the most revamping in the GAR) but i did stop. however i have reconsidered continuing work on this. if I do re-continue id like to do a full scale revamp of the article (prose and sources, images are fine i think) which would take some time but i am very willing to do it. 750h+ 03:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is one of the articles about a significant figure that i do want to make FA, so i think it’s good that this article does become one. also i think the 10k length is somewhat justifiable given articles like Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, etc are of a similar size, slightly shorter or longer (Beyonce has had a longer career than all of them, and is by far more influential in terms of music) 750h+ 03:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: So far, I have been cutting individual sentences from various places: the article history has the edits I made today. Some of what I cut are announcements of things that happened later, which I usually cut and to emphasise the actual event happened. I also cut explanatory information about things like Tidal, which I think is better in the article about the topic. I cut some share price information post-announcement as too much information. There was a lawsuit about the Gate Five promotion that I removed, but I wouldn't oppose it returning to the article but reworded to explain what happened more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding page size: when Perry, Gaga, and Swift were promoted to FA, they were all under 9,000 words. They only became larger afterwards and I think if they were submitted to FAC today there would be questions about their length. If this is to go to WP:FAC larger than 9,000 words, editors will have to explain why Beyonce needs to be larger than larger topics like Earth and Philosophy, and it will be hard to convince editors that the extra length is justified. I am happy to continue going through the article and considering more text that can be cut. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody who reviewed those FACs was worried about sheer word count, Z1720. Those who left comments rightfully paid more attention to which details were and weren't important to mention. You should do the same instead of over-focusing on exactly how many words are used. It's not a firm requirement to stay under 9K as you seem to think, so please don't treat that as one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: thanks for the edits but i am currently working on the article (replacing sources, prose etc) so i think it’d be nice if you could do your copy edit when i finish. 750h+ 02:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: Feel free to ping me when ready. Z1720 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: think i've done a good amount of the article, if you want to do your copyedits you can (I think the article is fine in its current condition but i will look over your copyedits and if i see anything we can discuss that) and the article is submittable for peer review. I might do some things within the Business endeavors but you can do your ce 750h+ 09:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: i think now i'll submit it for PR 750h+ 15:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harv warnings

Presently, this article has 40 (yes FORTY) Harv cite warnings. I am going to work my way through all 40 problems. One at a time. THEN this article won't be in the Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors anymore. - Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes red refs all over....added tag but was removed saying "ref errors only visible to people with a script"......no clue what that means. Yes pls steepup and fix huge sources problem. Moxy🍁 02:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I just noticed this under FA review..... I will assume that there's some sort of error going on while things are being fixed. Should have looked more closely hopefully it's fixed shortly. Moxy🍁 02:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't seem like we had to much work. all i did was add 'ref=none' and the problems i believe were fixed 750h+ 02:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing this on a PC.... still seeing 38 reference errors? Let's make sure that mobile and PC view are being reviewed. Moxy🍁 02:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should be more clear....we have Harv cites that link to nothing..... thus displaying an error that the references isn't there. Moxy🍁 02:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: i'm on PC too. i'm confused as to what error you're seeing. I have went through every reference in the "Print sources" section and they are cited appropriately in the article. Also I believe my additions of the 'ref=none' parameters to the long-form sources contributed to the article no longer being included in the Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. 750h+ 02:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your trusted editor so I assume you're doing the right thing...... I see that others are complaining about multiple articles having the same problem I'm going to assume there is just a reference display problem for people using service outside the United States right now. Moxy🍁 02:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing comes up for me, i don't see any references issues appear. However, I am outside of the US so maybe. In that case I'll be waiting for a response from Shearonink. 750h+ 02:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before this is under a review with multiple experience editors overseeing it....... any experience editor will assume that this will be taken care of .... Or it simply something I'm seeing as a Canadian. Sorry to cause any distress. Moxy🍁 02:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the single-numbered/multi-ref'ed accolades...

This seems to be veering into WP:OVERCITE territory. Besides the Harv warnings, there are 14 cites for Ref #7, 4 for Ref #386, 8 for Ref #494, 6 for Ref #500, 8 for Ref #502... - Shearonink (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the 14 cites and merged it with another ref; I think given the the statements it supports (past controversies [most recently from November 2024 to January 2025] over the statements "greatest entertainer" and "most influential artists") having the number of cites it does now (8) is warranted. Cite 386 only has 4 sources because each source supports a sentence that could possibly become outdated or be seen as untrue. 501 prevents cite clutter for the fact that her albums, singles, music videos and etc have all been considered some of the greatest of all time. Thanks and best, 750h+ 02:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

So extremely appreciative of anyone who helped with the journey of GAR to FA for the article. Appreciation to @Z1720 and Medxvo: who both helped with the trimming of the article (more appreciation to Z1720 for being the reason I decided to FA this in the first place), @SNUGGUMS: who's been overlooking the article since I began its development, as well as @Vacant0, Pokelego999, Arconning, MSincccc, Epicgenius, ImaginesTigers, Pokelego999, and Ippantekina: who gave the article incredibly thorough reviews to make sure the article has become the highest quality possible! I'm so grateful that our collective hard work has finally paid off :). 750h+ 04:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @750h+: Thanks for the shoutout and the hard work you did for getting this article to FA status. If anyone ever needs an article trimmed (or slashed, or brutally cut down) for an FAC run, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ thank you and congratulations! I'm happy to see this article's been promoted. You did fantastic work. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean "overseeing" instead of "overlooking", but nevertheless I was glad to help out with my own edits and assessing other changes made. The only downside of getting involved to the extent I did was it disqualified me from reviewing the page at FAC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
probably but thanks regardless 750h+ 13:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Occupations

Hey, I’d love to hear your take on why some of her occupations list like "record producer, director, and philanthropist" were taken out of the infobox?? Beyoncé has been recognised for her production work and is credited as a producer for her own work, and reputable media outlets have acknowledged her for it. In additional, Billboard just named her the sixth producer of the 21st century based on Hot 100 success. Also, as director she directed her own videos and documentary especially post-Lemonade visual. Pinging @750H+ KoolKid321 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the documentation at Template:Infobox person, this field should match the "Occupation(s) as given in the lead." Right now, the lead doesn't say Beyonce is a "record producer, director, and philanthropist." Note I do not dispute that Beyonce is a record producer, director, or philanthropist, but the infobox generally should reflect what the person is most notable for. Put another way, the infobox isn't meant to be fully comprehensive, it's more of a way for readers to quickly ascertain quick facts about the article subject and why they're notable. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it's common to just list the full occupations list in the infobox like it's done in the lead for a public figure's encyclopedia article. Why does it only apply to her? Per MOS:ROLEBIO only the most notable occupations in lead and "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles". KoolKid321 (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct about the lead. But that doesn't mean we should clutter up the infobox with less notable occupations. As I mentioned earlier, Per the documentation at Template:Infobox person, this field should match the "Occupation(s) as given in the lead". This means that the occupations described in the lead should be the same occupations listed in the infobox. Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can they be considered "less notable" when they are still part of her job? Don't you think the infobox occupations for Taylor Swift, Jay-Z, and Alicia Keys should match their lead? How this strict rules only apply on her? I believe the infobox should include a full list of all individual's occupations list, with the most significant one highlighted at the lead. KoolKid321 (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not consistent with the instructions at Template:Infobox person/doc. If you have an issue with the infobox instructions or with the other articles you've listed, please open up a discussion at the relevant talk page. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead wording

Hi 750h+! Been thinking about the wording of the lead and thought would post here so we can discuss. I feel like it might read better if we connect her vocals and performance to her being an entertainer, and her reinventions and impact on popular music to her being influential. The lead would then be:

Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter (/biˈɒnseɪ/ ⓘ bee-ON-say; born September 4, 1981) is an American singer, songwriter, actress, and businesswoman. Regarded as one of the most influential cultural figures in history, her pioneering releases and artistic reinventions have shaped popular music throughout the 21st century. She is also renowned for her vocal ability and live performances, and is often deemed one of the greatest entertainers of all time.

I get that "revolutionized" or "transformed" is what sources say, but I've used "shaped" here as may be less peacock-y. Also I'm not sure if "pioneering" is a good word to use - maybe "culturally important"? Let me know what you think! Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think the current is fine, and more concise. "Regarded as one of the most influential cultural figures in history" sounds like a bit of a stretch, i'd say the current wording is fine. "shaped popular music" also might be a bit of a stretch too. "pioneering releases and artistic reinventions" could possibly be added somewhere but i've pretty happy with the current version. 750h+ 12:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to call Beyonce one of the most influential culture figures in history, then Michael Jackson's page will need another glow-up again, since he's clearly on a tier of his own with scholars & historians deeming his fame completely omnipresent with direct comparisons made with figures like Jesus Christ and claims of him being more significant / popular in their own countries than The Pope, Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin during his own lifeftime. Never17 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jackson has nothing to do with this page, that's for his relevant talk page. 750h+ 02:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is even figures like Jackson, Elvis for example don't have "most influential cultural figures in history" on their page despite being far more influential on pop culture. Taylor Swift doesn't either, neither does Madonna. So we run a risk overstating Beyonce by attributing so many claims to her "most influential artists, greatest entertainer AND most influential cultural figures in history" is excessive. Simply "cultural icon" is a much better fit as it aligns with others like who have that on their article. When you mention "most significant or influential in history" it's very meaningful. Like comparable to the upper echelon of historical figures with impact transcendent of your medium. We don't have sources citing that she's at that level. She's a very successful 21st century artist that helped define her era alongside other hugely successful acts like Eminem, Taylor, Gaga, Britney and Katy who could be argued as just as influential. Never17 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, also "most influential cultural figures in history" isn't on the page and hasn't been on the page in a while because I myself said that was an overstatement so i really don't know where that came from 750h+ 02:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, i made a mistake thinking people recently engaged in the discussion to add it back. You are right Never17 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: Thanks for your response. Especially given the changes made since, I feel like it is a bit repetitive right now and can be tightened to ensure conciseness and minimise redundancies. For example, I feel like we don't need to describe her as both "one of the most culturally significant figures of the 21st century" and "a dominant figure worldwide", and we also say that she is known for her "live performances", has contributed to "performance", and "is often deemed one of the greatest entertainers" in three separate sentences. How about something like this:
Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter (/biˈɒnseɪ/ ⓘ bee-ON-say; born September 4, 1981) is an American singer, songwriter, actress, and businesswoman. Regarded as one of the most culturally significant figures of the 21st century, her pioneering releases and artistic reinventions have been credited with revolutionizing the music industry throughout her three-decade career. She is also renowned for her vocal ability and live performances, and is often deemed one of the greatest entertainers of all time. Bgkc4444 (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think "shaping popular music" is less peacocky and reads better than "revolutionizing the music industry" (and is said explicitly in a reliable source [1]), and am thinking maybe "artistic innovations" is better than "artistic reinventions"? Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that works out, you could also say "Beyonce is a cultural icon whose regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of the 21st century (which is true & more specific) but you have a solid foundation here Never17 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the sources in the last reference of the current opening paragraph and it says that she is one of the greatest entertainers of all time, not just of the 21st century, so we should stick to the sources for that. The sources also say that she is one of the most influential artists of all time, so how about:
Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter (/biˈɒnseɪ/ ⓘ bee-ON-say; born September 4, 1981) is an American singer, songwriter, actress, and businesswoman. Regarded as one of the most influential figures in music history, her pioneering releases and artistic innovations have shaped popular music in the 21st century. She is also renowned for her vocal ability and live performances, and is often deemed one of the greatest entertainers of all time. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the greatest entertainers of all time is supported by numerous statements, so that's fine. But none of the sources do much to explain what exactly makes Beyonce one of the most influential artists, they just say "acclaim" which points to moreso grammy awards & accolades from various award shows. I think the Associated Press article highlights impact on Black culture and feminism. But the rest mostly highlight "acclaim as one of the most influential". So i want other editors to weigh in first, so we can have a consensus Never17 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to these soon i don't have much time at the moment 750h+ 14:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source do explicitly say that Beyonce is one of the most influential artists and give reasons for it (not that it should affect whether we stick to the source). The AP article says "acclaim as one of the most influential artists in music history", not meaning her various award shows but with "acclaim" meaning she is considered that by people, and goes on to talk about "her expansive cultural legacy" and how she "has generated awareness and engagement in social and political ideologies". The other sources referenced all explain why she is influential, e.g., the Rolling Stone article says it is "due to her talents as a vocalist" and "because she’s not scared to speak her mind" given her works with messages on "Black Feminism & African-American history and culture". Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The influence is generally tied to Black feminism, black culture and social justice issues. Therefore since the sources repeat that, we should highlight this in her legacy section "Due to her successful music career along with her impact on Black culture, feminism, and social justice issues Beyonce is regarded as one of the most influential artists of all time". The lead can simply refer to her as "considered one of the greatest musical performers of all time" which is by far the most broad consensus on her. Never17 (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article's lede now exhibits WP:PEACOCK issues and editorial bias due to the use of laudatory language without balanced context. Without direct support from reliable secondary sources, some claims may also constitute WP:SYNTH. I've reverted the new additions by 750h+, which I found overly grandiose without sufficient backing from the sources. Given the ongoing discussion, where Bgkc4444 has offered suggestions, if these additions are restored again without consensus, it would be best to take the issue to WP:DRN.. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made wording less peacocky and more nuanced per suggestions above, replacing 'revolutionizing the music industry' with 'shaping popular music' to reduce hyperbole and vagueness, and provide a more balanced assessment of Beyoncé's impact, as explicitly cited in reliable and independent sources provided above TheWikiholic (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm happy with the current wording. I'm not a big fan of "her pioneering releases and artistic innovations" as suggested above as she's only really made one release that could be considered "pioneering" (Beyonce 2013) and "artistic innovations" is WP:PEACOCK. I like the current 750h+ 08:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concert tour chronology inconsistency

I'm discussing here rather than on a specific tour article, but I've seen that the tour chronology counts, most of the times, the co-headlining shows as overall, eg, the Beyoncé Experience is listed as the second concert tour after the Dangerously in Love Tour (headlining) and Verizon's Ladies First (co-headlining), but the I Am... tour suddenly jumps to as the fourth concert tour. Then, the Formation and Renaissance tours are respectively referred as seventh and ninth following On the Run I and II tours. I'm not aware if there are already multiple sources stating these tours' chronology and referring each one as such, but in a contrary case, should not be stated the I Am... tour as the "third headlining concert tour", while Formation and Renaissance as the "fifth" and "sixth" headlining concert tours?.

Tagging @Bgkc4444 @SNUGGUMS @Ippantekina @HorrorLover555 @Livelikemusic - Bichota B (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admittedly haven't kept close enough track of joint tours between different musicians to find patterns of chronology counts, which leaves me unsure what to say on the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it seems this is more worth discussing in her WikiProject or any of the above WikiProjects rather than here, everything here concerns this article and not others. Though if someone'd like to work on this then feel free. 750h+ 10:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2025

He name is Denise Ridding from Centerville Iowa. Her brother David is iKA causing riots. 184.59.32.247 (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nubzor [T][C] 14:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be R&B pop hip hop soul

She only has one country album 142.188.23.180 (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it's significant. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Inaccuracy and Puffery

As the title states, there's issues with this article related to factual accuracy. More specifically the article is riddled with puffery, inaccurate synth and OR in the legacy section. The excerpts listed below in quotes are unsupported:

- "She is credited with revolutionizing the music industry, transforming the production." None of the sources cited credit her with transforming production specifically. Even taking the sources together it's difficult to come to this conclusion.

- "Beyoncé is also recognized for reviving the music video as an art form." None of the sources cited credit her with reviving music videos as an art form nor do the present an argument that music videos as an art form were dead. The term "art form" is used in discussion of her music videos but no argument is presented for her reviving it. The only conclusion that can be made from cited sources is that Beyonce values the art form of music videos.

- "Her use of staccato rap-singing and chopped and re-pitched vocals helped them become prominent in 21st-century music." The source provided for this claim are a Billboard Interview and Guardian article where Beyonce makes grandiose claims about herself inventing staccato rap-singing and chopped vocals. It's essentially primary and staccato rap-singing has been around prior to her debut.

- "Beyoncé's work transcends traditional genre boundaries, creating new artistic standards that shaped contemporary music and set the precedent for music artists to move between and beyond genre confines." The two sources cited for this claim are TIME and NPR. The TIME doesn't discuss genres whatsoever and the NPR article only discuss her blending genres. While the NPR article is supportive of the tidbit about transcending genre boundaries, it doesn't support the notion that Beyonce created new artistic standards or shaped contemporary music or set a precedent for artist to move between genres.

- "She has helped repopularize such subgenres of music as R&B, country, dance, and house, while also being credited with introducing Afrobeats to the US mainstream." Lets start here with R&B. The two sources cited are a NPR and Billboard article. The NPR articles states that during the 2010s Beyonce wanted to make an effort to get R&B back on mainstream top 40 radio. No further details are provided on whether she was successful in doing or did so alone. The Billboard article builds on this and adds that during a few months in 2013 there was a drought of R&B on mainstream radio. It goes on to credit artists Pharrell Williams, John Legend, Jason Derulo, Beyonce, Kid Ink and Aloe Blacc’s as ending the drought and lists Pharrell, Legend and Jason as the main contributors. Not Beyonce. So how did this get misconstrued into Beyonce re-popularizing sub genres of R&B? There is no argument presented that there was a significant commercial decline in R&B or that it was a lasting decline. There was a short lived mainstream radio decline and it was primarily ended by artists who aren't Beyonce. Next is country music. The sources cited for her supposedly re-popularizing country music are BBC and TheConversation. The BBC praises her country album and TheConversation discuss the album break racial stereotypes about country music. Neither sources back the claim that Beyonce helped re-popularize the genre; which at the time was the most dominant genre on the Billboard 200 and Beyonce country release wasn't even the most commercially successful country release of that year. Lastly there is the claim that she introduced Afrobeats to the US mainstream music market. The sources cited are local newspaper The Sacramento Observer and Rolling Stone. The Rolling Stone article only talks about her releasing an Afrobeats album with African collaborators. There is no argument presented that this album introduced Afrobeats to the US mainstream and whether the album was a commercial success. The Sacramento Observer is niche and not necessarily RS but lets go into the what the article states. It credits Drake and Beyonce with helping the genre reach a mainstream US audience. Primarily Drake because unlike Beyonce he achieved massive commercial and radio success with his Afrobeats release. The article then goes onto cite social media chatter where Africans push back on the narrative that Beyonce popularized Afrobeats in the US. The claim is very weak.

These few instances of blatant puffery and factual inaccuracy in one section likely point to a problem with factual inaccuracy across the entire article. But it would be to taxing for any one editor to check every single source and in every section. It requires a collective approach. This should've been done prior to this article even being listed as a featured article; which was a premature decision. Featured article are supposed to be a definitive source for encyclopedic information. This isn't the case here and ideally the article should be de-listed as a FA while issues are addressed. Isjadd773 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The article should be de-listed as a FA while issues are addressed" unfortunately we can't do this, there has to be responses before the article can be considered for even an WP:FAR. the article will have to remain an FA while issues get addressed.
  • The production part was a fair removal IMO, so i've removed that
  • "Beyoncé is also recognized for reviving the music video as an art form." Two of them do. I can show you where if you'd like. I don't know what more I need to say. And I also can provide a few more sources if you'd like.
  • "The source provided for this claim are a Billboard Interview and Guardian article". Sooo it seems like we're just going to ignore the other two sources i guess? Nice.
  • Now for the genres. I think you may need to take another read of the R&B articles. The NPR article states that her aim was to bring R&B back to the forefront, which the Billboard article states very clearly that she successfully did. Also I am genunielnly confused with what you mean by "It goes on to credit artist Pharrell Williams, John Legend, Jason Derulo, Beyonce, Kid Ink and Aloe Blacc’s as ending the drought and list Pharrell, Legend and Jason as the main contributors. Not Beyonce." when you literally list Beyoncé right there. Mind you, it says atop the article, "a Ross On Radio reader wrote to suggest that the worst period for R&B crossovers since the disco backlash" (which occured in 1980). Beyonce participated in this comeback. She is part of the reason WHY it made a comeback. Therefore, she can be included.
  • Unfortunately I cannot include every single source about the country impact. However, The Times writes that country music listenership went up following CC's release, Tennessean writes that she revitalized conversations of Black artists belonging in the genre, inspired much of the younger generation listen to the genre, have 23% of country music fans count down the days 'til the album's release and boosted industries from fashion and beyond. Here are more sources in case, apparently showing that country was "not cool" until recently: [2] [3]
  • Afrobeats. If those two sources weren't enough, here's more: [4][5][6][7]. I think the two were enough though.
Anyways, i'll be continuing with my responses later 750h+ 16:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2025

Change the title photo to a newer photo of Beyoncé. Something from the year 2025. Possibly something from her latest tour, the ‘Cowboy Carter Tour’. ~2025-39830-55 (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: If you have a specific photo in mind, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons or use the files for upload process, but keep in mind that it must be freely licensed and comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Day Creature (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny's Child name change source(s)

@750h+: Given that History.com and Encyclopedia Britannica are as high-quality as sources come, could you please elaborate on what exactly the issue is here? QuestFour (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@QuestFour: Per WP:RSPHISTORY, History.com is considered a generally unreliable source. With Encyclopædia Britannica, there is no consensus regarding its reliability, and "[e]ditors prefer reliable secondary sources over [it]," per WP:BRITANNICA (see also: WP:TERTIARY). Thus, neither is considered a "high-quality" reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and should be avoided, especially when there's already a reliable source in The Guardian (per WP:THEGUARDIAN). AG202 (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202: Thanks for the response. Will the sources below, NBC, DW, work?
Although could arguably be regarded as less reliable, American Songwriter has written an article specifically on this topic.
Overall the majority of reputable and reliable sources and publications seem to provide the 1996 date, The Guardian is the only source I could find for 1997. The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound source does not mention either. Therefore, unless other sources are cited for the 1997 date, The Guardian source should not be used for this as per WP:UNDUE and WP:SOURCESDIFFER. QuestFour (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NBC is considered a reliable source as per the relevant information at WP:NBC and Deutsche Welle is also considered reliable as per WP:DEUTSCHEWELLE. So, both sources are usable. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Speak My Mind (Beyoncé album)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Speak My Mind (Beyoncé album) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 12 § Speak My Mind (Beyonce Album) until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Bown Down/I Been On" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bown Down/I Been On has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 19 § Bown Down/I Been On until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beyonc%C3%A9