Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music/Archive 3

Small change needs to occur

"undisputed in spite of death (Presley, Marley), diminishment (Presley, Franklin, Brown, Jackson) and general weirdness (Jackson)".[3] needs to add Jackson to the first group and should read: "undisputed in spite of death (Presley, Marley, Jackson), diminishment (Presley, Franklin, Brown, Jackson) and general weirdness (Jackson)".[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawb (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. This is a quotation from 2004 and she didn't mention Jackson in the "death" section as he was still alive at the time. Rodhullandemu 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the information is now outdated at the King of Pop is now dead. So it should be removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.40.59 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

List of titles

Some of these alleged titles are no more than a single instance of someone referring to the person that way, and in some cases the reference isn't even accurate. Taking Michael Jackson as an example, he is listed next to the title "Biggest Pop Star of the '80s." Not only is this not an honorific title, but it's based on a blog entry (!!!) which begins "Michael Jackson was unquestionably the biggest pop star of the '80s." Besides not being an honorific, it is not a commonly used title for Jackson, only an observation.

A few lines down, Jackson is listed as the "God of Music." This claim is being supported on the basis of a single remark by Wyclef Jean that Jackson was "his music god." This does not imply a general use of that term, and isn't even the same as is listed in the article.

Similarly, Michael Jackson is listed next to "God of Pop" on the basis of this Newsweek article. But the only instance of those 2 words in the article is in the title, which reads "How Michael Jackson became a Pop God," which is hardly the same thing.

I'm removing these three for a start, but the whole list needs to be carefully examined. It should not be simply an exhaustive list of every offhand comment recorded in print that someone has made about a musician, but a list of titles by which musicians are actually commonly known. In Michael Jackson's case, for instance, he was widely known as the King of Pop. Claims for these titles need to be well sourced as widely applied, or this article will rapidly become a huge, non-neutral, unreliable mess. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Passing references are inadequate as reliable sources, and we should arguably only rely upon sources whose authority is accepted, such as Allmusic, Rolling Stone, Melody Maker, and others of that calibre. To my mind, local newspapers don't make it, and neither do comments by non-professional music journalists. A cull is long overdue here. Rodhullandemu 00:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think The Greatest Entertainer of All Time should be added to the list. Many at MJ's memorial agreed this was an appropriate title for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.40.59 (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed any one-time use references to Jackson, this article is meant to convey titles that are used regularly. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is the right section to add this comment. I don't think it's necessarily worthy of its own section. Why, WHY, are there 12 different female artists listed under "Queen of Pop." The ONLY artist I've heard referred to as the Queen of Pop is Madonna and she's probably the only one worthy of the title. I suppose Mariah Carey is worthy of discussion, but Christina Aguilera? Beyonce? Celine Dion? Janet Jackson? Shakira? Nina? Gwen Stefani? Britney Spears? RIHANNA? Just downright silly. Prufrock79 (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As part of the revisions discussed below I am going through all the entries to assess whether they meet the new criteria. It takes time as I have to check each source and deal with the formatting issues. It has been observed elsewhere on this page that when someone is called a pop princess or queen of pop is not the same as someone being generally known as The Queen of Pop. Only the second sort meets the new criteria, so I anticipate that some of these will be going in order to make entries fit the new criteria.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Madonna, Celine, Janet, Mariah and Whitney are the ones most frequently associated with the title by the criteria of sources. Madonna and Janet started their careers in 1982/1983 which is why they're always seen as being in direct competition. Whitney, Celine and later Mariah all eventually became referenced by it, but Madonna still leads as the most frequent association. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I would pretty much agree with that. The only ones who whom the sources stood up, or were easily available, were Whitney and Madonna. References to Ms Spears and Aguilera were overwhelmingly to "Princess of Pop". I will revisit Celine and Mariah when I get to the end of the process, since I suspect there are reliable sources out there that say - "often known as", but if anyone has such info to hand, feel free to put them back in and save me the trouble.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said about Madonna. She is the ONLY artist known as Queen of Pop and her wiki page should say so. Britney has been referenced as Princess, but Christina has simply not been as successful. Albeit she may have more natural talent, she just doesn't have Britney's numbers when it comes to achievements. Janet and Whitney are great, but they've never been called these names.

???

Im starting to think this page should just be scrapped, if im honest. It seems anyone can make it on to the list with silly references etc. I think there should be more rules layed out, for example a few (maybe 5) references stating the title, that way we are coming up with a list we can all be happy with and can acknowledge the true meaning of a honorific title! Wneedham02 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We should be more strict on references, to be sure. Unfortunately, the article has become something of a battleground for pro- and anti- factions, as well as something of a dilution of the idea of an "honorific". However, the lead sets out criteria, which seem to be routinely ignored by editors with an axe to grind. As regards scrapping, just because an article is difficult to maintain should not diminish its encyclopedic value, and it has already survived three deletion attempts. Some other committed editors would be welcome, as I have much other stuff to do here, and elsewhere. Proposals for *removals* and *additions" of entries may be made below here, but as usual, reliable sources are the keystone for inclusion hereRodhullandemu 23:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We need a section on the actual page itself, rather than on here which outlines the definition of a honorific title giving a variety of examples. "Greatest Artist Of All Time" is one I see for Michael Jackson...that's not a honorific title as far as I'm aware, that's a description, or a set of adjectives, or something....but it's not a honorific title.

Rules on citations need making FAR more obvious too. There's a Michael Jackson one in there in which the source is.....a Michael Jackson album booklet. We can't include a title without a third party source surely?

Lastly I suggest a list of nominations on here, to try and contain edit wars as much as possible. I'm going to create this now. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

What, delete this valuable contribution to human knowledge? This must be the most useful page on Wiki or at least as useful as any of the others that I've stumbled across. C'mon, where else will someone looking for the King of Persian Pop learn about Shadmehr Aghili? Jmdeur (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce & Jay-Z

Well whilst we are adding anyone to anything may aswell add Beyonce to 'Queen of Hip Hop' and 'Queen of Soul' and Jay-Z to 'King of Hip Hop'

Considering she doesn't sing hip hop or soul, it's silly to call her those titles, she performs almost exclusively pop music (laid over the top of pseudo rnb). And while we're at it, JZ is not a hip hop rapper, or producer, as most of the music he produces is old-school rap, which is not really anything to do with hip hop (which is a form of music, not something that belongs to the entirety of "anything that people rap to"). I realise the definiteion is subjective, but it's not about individual instances that this article be written, but upon "known" names and commonalities. People know Elvis Presley as the King, MJ as the King of Pop, Kylie Minogue (shudder) as the Princess of Pop. A person can make an announcement of a moniker, but it doesn't put it into the general view as being a commonplace honorific title. This argument needs also to apply to many titles given in this article, but I thought I might argue this before it get added without thought being given to the action. --rm 'w avu 05:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Fix

Can someone fix up Roy Acuff's mention, I'm too thick to work these tables. He's appearing just below the "Male titles" heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.129.216 (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. Rodhullandemu 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NOMINATIONS ADD ALL TO THIS LIST

Bessie Smith - "Empress of the Blues" and "Queen of the Blues"

Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Grace Slick - "The Acid Queen" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.193.16 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

KISS - "The Hottest Band In The World"

Not an honorific--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses - "The Most Dangerous Band In The World"

Not an honorific --SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oasis - "Kings Of Britpop"

No reliable source found--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony Iommi - "Lord Of The Riff" "Kings Of The Sunset Strip"

Black Sabbath - "Fathers Of Heavy Metal"

No reliable source found (turns up a lot more for Led Zep)--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

David Lee Roth - "Diamond David Lee Roth"/"Diamond Dave"

Not an honorific --SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Slash - "The Last Guitar Hero"

Not an honorific --SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Steven Tyler/Joe Perry - "Toxic Twins"

Not an honorific --SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nikki Sixx/Tommy Lee and Phil Collen/Steve Clarke - "Terror Twins"

Not an honorific --SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Keith Richards/Mick Jagger - "The Glimmer Twins"

Not an honorific --SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Motley Crue - "Kings Of The Strip"/"Kings Of The Sunset Strip" "Kings Of The Sunset Strip"

Johnny Cash - King of Country (why wasn't he on here before???)

No reliable source found--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim Morrison - "God of Rock"

No reliable source found--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tupac - King of Rap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waluigi222 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No reliable source found--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sid Vicious - "Prophet of Punk"

No reliable source found--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain - "Voice of a Generation"

Not an honorific --SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack Endino- Produced Nirvana's Bleach is also considered the "Godfather of Grunge" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.12.149 (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No reliable source found--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Eminem - King Of Rap

No reliable source found--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I also propose "The Big Four Of Thrash" have "[in the 1980s]" bracketed at the end, since it's a HISTORICAL title really, no longer a fair one to apply to them in a contemporary setting

Done

Depending on our definition of honorific title, possibly "The Human Riff" for Keith Richards?

Not an honorific --SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And let's this sorted by NAME rather than TITLE so that an artist's titles can be gathered in one place? (The Elfoid (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Aerosmith- "The Bad Boys from Boston"? I keep adding it, but someone keeps deleting it! 63.198.113.60 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an honorific --SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Imawano Kiyoshiro = "Japanese King of Rock" Source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.217 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Source 2 Source 3 24.62.54.215 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Ramones- "The Godfathers of Punk" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.45.136 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending (the MC5 and Stoogies get more hits)--SabreBD (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson should been listed with the tittle, King of Entertainment, aswell as King of Pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.50.112 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, King of Entertainment, I am agree with you, and Jackson should been listed with the title "King of pop, rock and soul" (it means king of popular music, king of rock music, and king of soul music). The link [1]

But Michael Jackson is coronated as the "latest King of rock and roll" in 1984, because he did the "black rock and roll" (soul, funk and disco) and the "white rock and roll" (hard rock). In the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s Jackson is always considered a rock star.

The abbreviated title "King of pop" causes confusion because it is not exactly a music title, it is refered to king of popular charts, popular music or popular culture. "Pop" is an abbreviation of "popular". See the links [2] [3]

Jackson is musically the last king of rock and roll. "Jackson," asserted Time in March 1984, "is the biggest thing since the Beatles. Michael Jackson, the most important rock star of the early 1980s. Read the link [4]

This is the true, Jackson is musically the lastest king of rock and roll. Read the link [5]

--Newalf (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Zeki Müren

• Zeki Müren is one of most famous Turkish musicians and his honorific title is "Sun of Art" (Turkish: Sanat Güneşi). The page is currently semi-protected and i can't add this information. --88.253.143.169 (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Miley Cyrus should be addded to Pop Princess because she is the only active pop singer right now apart from Britney Spears. Britney herself has called Miley the next 'big thing'.

^^ I dunno whoever posted the above message, but unless you're joking, do us all a favor and stay away from wikipedia's music articals. Also, sign your posts by typing four tides like this (w/o the dot) ~~.~~ that's how this appears (incase you're new here) > MarthsBullet (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is stupid, nicknames are not honorific titles

So if a journalist says someone is the God of Music, then it's an honorific title?
James Brown has been referred to as the Godfather of Soul, then just say it in his article, the same for Michael Jackson as the King of Pop, and Aretha as the Queen of Soul, but these are just nicknames not honorific titles.
This list of nicknames is not encyclopedic. --89.226.117.72 (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. This list is pretty silly, and should probably be deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

--Read The Honorific article. Honorifics may resemble nicknames in some respects, because they are not that person's given name; and are therefore cognomens...(some people sometimes use the terms interchangeably). However the conotation of an honorific is "esteem". A nickname on the other hand may or may not present esteem. "King of Rock" portrays esteem, and is therefore an honorific; because the person is not really a monarch. The only terms that should be removed would be those that do not produce esteem such as something like "The Big Gun" (I know that's not in the article, it's just an example of a non-honrific nickname.) Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the honorific article, which deals with formal titles within a specific social or hierarchical system, whereas the vast majority of "tiles" in this article are just nick names or marketing tools and not worthy of recording. This is in addition to the issues over misuse of evidence that are mentioned above. This really is the sort of article that gives WP a bad name.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the point in having an honorific title is that the title itself is enduring and relatively indisputable. Perhaps more importantly, there should be some consensus on how we weigh sources. For instance, I could come up with all sorts of references and add Debbie Gibson as "Teen Queen" or "Pop Princess". Using a hardline "WP:(insert policy here) is set in stone and infallible", I could probably pass the criteria. But, that ignores the fact that she's pushing 40, the terms are not synonymous with her anymore, and referencing Teen Beat from 1988 is kind of ridiculous. Never mind the fact that either term is ascribed to any popular female artist who hasn't hit her mid-20's yet, and changes every few years. It all begs the questions: "What is this article trying to accomplish? Who decides what titles are truly 'honorific'? At what point does a person go from being a flash in the pan to someone of permanence? And for the more transient artists (in terms of popularity), at what point do we add, remove, or update the list?" I just don't see how this article answers more questions than it creates. -- Kevin (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

honorifics as defined by the dictionary: adj. Conferring or showing respect or honor. n. A title, phrase, or grammatical form conveying respect. Perhaps the honorifics article needs to exemplify altering defintions of the term; though when I made comment they kind of did at the time. Also I have no comment about the sourcing; as Wikipedia already has guidelines in place for both naming conventions and verifiable sources.Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree these are not accurate and some are mere opinion. They are not definite nor common knowledge with the global exception of a few, such as Elvis, Micheal Jackson, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, etc. Some of these titles/names change, and are used again during different periods of times. Meaning, Jackson may have been the "King of Pop" at one time and is still known world-wide as the "King of Pop" for instance. Elvis, as the "King", etc. However, those torches pass as their fame diminishes. Or titles are repeated with other musicians (or other media capacities/personalities). Some of these "nicknames" are self-proclaimed and not universal. Some are used more than once for more than one person. I was a teenager while MC Hammer was popular and he was considered the God-father of Rap or "Pop Rap" at that time as a result of his success and record-breaking status (much like Elvis and Jackson or Elton John). I don't see that on the list! Why? Times changed. People move on and discredit that when another popular artists reign. That, or a source can't be provided as proof. Take for instance, Dion was considered an Innovator or Master of Rock. Not based on it's creation of the genre, but his popularization and style of it. That is perhaps a quote from one or only a few sources when his albums were released. (I personally own one that mentions something to this effect.) But is it "official"? Who can tell. I have heard that a "no name" guy was the first one to sing a rock song, country song, etc. but was not a popular artist. So although someone may have been credited as singing the first rock song, or some debate they are the "King of ?" (ie. Little Richard vs Elvis vs Ray Charles vs Roy Orbison vs Stevie Wonder, etc. etc.), these have to be factual. Some of these are hear-say and biased. You could say that so many others earned these titles and more. For instance, is Prince the Prince of Pop or R&B? No disrespect to R. Kelly and Usher, but there were other artists before them that were probably considered this as well or had an equally substantial career. Ie. Teddy Pendergrass, Jackie Wilson, Wonder and/or Marvin Gaye. I have never heard Clapton was "God". I'm not debating his skills, or that the title didn't exist, but is it universal? I only consider one existence as "GOD" and/or "KING". My point? This is "unofficial" and not a legit article in my opinion. I am not wanting nor starting an argument or debate, nor will I be involved in one. I also request no angry or juvenile replies. I am merely giving my "talk page" input and appreciate you taking the time to read and consider it. This is not the final word on the matter/subject, nor a reliable source in my opinion. Have a great day! 69.129.170.102 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

[6] User Sabrebd added a tag claiming there is a dispute over factual accuracy in this article, but there was no #Disputed section on the talk page. Please explain precisely and clearly what "factual accuracy" is disputed? Gimmetrow 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No but there is a section above to which I contributed, from which it can be seen that there is a considerable body of opinion that considers that this article has serious problems (see under the section above, "???" and "list of titles"). For clarity I think there are two major issues that can be discussed.

• Is this article worthy of inclusion - particularly what clear criteria can be used to assess the validity of "titles"?
• The use of sources: single instances, passing references, or no longer relevant titles are a big problem in this article, and this is why I used the fact tag.

The implication of the first would be a nomination for deletion. Personally I would like to avoid that if the article could be given some form of validity through better consideration of the problems. The second implies the need for at least a major pruning of this article, with removal of the many insubstantial entries.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And where is any of that in WP:Accuracy dispute? That is generally for articles without references, or articles with falsified references. This article has a reference for every entry, and most seem valid. There may be some issue with over-reliance on single refs - this wouldn't be the first list with inclusion by a single ref that led to debate - but I just don't see the "accuracy dispute". Gimmetrow 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of the validity of this article for a moment, the problem here is not that there are not sources, or that most of them are not normally in themselves valid, but the way in which they are used. Just to give the example quoted for Woody Guthrie in footnote 62, what it actually says is not that he is "The King of Folk", but that he is "the king of folk purity". This is clearly not a title, but a general statement, and not even the title he is given in the table. Checking a number of sources indicates that they are not verifiable, because they have been used out of context. The relevant section is: "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article." at WP:BURDEN.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some kind of consensus on removing entries based on unreliable sources? I am inclined to agree with the comments above that "Passing references are inadequate as reliable sources, and we should arguably only rely upon sources whose authority is accepted, such as Allmusic, Rolling Stone, Melody Maker, and others of that calibre" and that ... local newspapers don't make it, and neither do comments by non-professional music journalists." Anything that misuses a source should also obviously go. If we can agree something around these principles and then make it clear we can considerably improve this article.--Sabrebd (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested principles: (extracted from comments above)

• That the sources should be reliable, i.e. refereed books or major recognised organisations like Allmusic, NME, Melody Maker or Rolling Stone Magazine and not local newspapers or a self created claim like a interview or a cd cover.

• That the source should actually indicate there is a title, that it should not just be a description and that it should indicate that it is widely used (e.g. widely known as "the king of ...".

I would welcome some comment on this, or after a reasonable amount of time I will take silence as consent and start pruning.--Sabrebd (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Major newspapers/organizations should be included, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, CNN etc. A number of major news organization also have music critics to review albums and concert torus. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind the rule of keeping a global perspective. Title that may mean squat in America or the UK may mean a great deal abroad (I'm thinking the terms to native Asian/Indian/African folk or pop music). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Both good points, I think we might cite the sort of papers explicitly.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Clapton Gone

Removed Clapton. The two references given refer to the same one incident (as such they are not 'two different' references). The two references refer to an alleged incident which has not ever been proved to have happened (as such they are simply reporting rumor, which has zero reliability). Even if the incident did happen, the actor responsible has never been identified, so the reliability of that person can not be ascertained. The two references do not refer to Clapton as the 'honorific' cited in this article -- they only relate a story about one alleged line of graffitti that supposedly was spray-painted in only one place, on only one wall, in only one underground (subway) station, in only one country. When one unknown person spray-paints only one sentence on only one wall of only one subway station in only one country in the whole wide world, that one graffitti sentence on one wall of one subway station in only one country in the whole wide world does not qualify as 'conferring' an honorific title on Clapton. Joe Hepperle (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Copied" tag

Could the poster please explain this tag and how it's being used? I see no content that was copied from this article in to the Mao Amin article, based on the link provided, but only information attributed to an external source. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We use the tag whenever anything of any kind is transported from one article to the next so that readers can trace a record of how the content moved around on wiki. Thus, from this article, I used "Dajieda ("Big Sister") Mao Amin China [145]" which went to the other article when first started (see and compare [7]), i.e. when I started that article, I first use the information from this list as it seemed strange that she would be redlinked, which got me interested in the subject and later resulted in the expansion of her article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name, and widespread usage

Comment. Two problems need to be addressed. A) the opening sentence says "Honorific titles are often conferred upon popular music artists for their contributions to the field." Conferred? By who?! These are neither titles nor honorifics. An alternative is hard to find, but perhaps "honorific nicknames" will do. Article needs renaming. B) All sources should be removed from the article - everything should be properly sourced in the artist articles (and properly sourced means indicating widespread usage). As part of indicating widespread usage, titles should only be included where editors agree to have a redirect for that title to a particular artist (and the title is also mentioned in the lede of the artist article). Rd232 talk 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to move the clean-up debate on (3 sections above), but have been waiting for the deletion debate to close. There seems to be widespread agreement that this article needs cleaning up. I think the the suggestions you make about removal and the titles being on biographical articles are good ones. I think one reliable and verifiable source is enough if it indicates widespread usage. I hope the many editors (both keeps and deletes) who contributed to that debate will support the debate over how it should be done here.

On a change of name the debate and this suggestion has generated 3 suggestions:

• Nicknames in popular music
• Honorific nicknames in popular music
• division into genre based nicknames articles (e.g. List of nicknames of rappers, List of nicknames of country music singers, List of musicians referred to with royal titles)

I am undecided just at the moment.--Sabrebd (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat for all of the above, i.e. a master list for overall convenience, but also the smaller genre specific list for those with browsers or internet services that cannot handle the big article load times? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of any idea of a master list, in fact that would rather invalidate your original proposal on the delete discussion, since part of the reason was to keep articles to reasonable length. It would seem more logical to keep this as a disambiguation and move material to the other articles.--Sabrebd (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think a sensible criterion for inclusion would be that the artist is shown to be commonly known by the nickname, either via a good single source that states as much or via several sources demonstrating usage. We also need to limit to those nicknames that indicate that the artist is a/the leading exponent of their genre or style, as virtually all musicians have nicknames and the list would otherwise be too indiscriminate. "Prince of darkness", "Big Sister", "Queen Bee", and "The Voice" would all go for instance. As for title, "List of popular music artists commonly known by a nickname that indicates that they are the leading exponent of their genre or style" is somewhat unwieldy but something of the same gist would be useful. "Honorific nicknames in popular music" is a reasonable compromise. --Michig (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree about the criteria, but I am reluctant on the issue of multiple sources, as this might encourage original research and I would prefer sources that simply state that usage is common (surely this wont be hard for established names like "King of Pop" or "Queen of Soul"). I am willing to go along with something like "Honorific nicknames in popular music", but would still like some clear sources pointing to this as a phenomenon. I will do yet another search as the lead will clearly have to be rewritten if the name is changed. I assume this article will stay as a disambiguation. We may be able to get a consensus around this sort of solution. Thanks to editors for the constructive contributions so far.--Sabrebd (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It needs to be in widespread use, and it needs to be as an actual alias of the person. Saying so and so is widely regarded as the father of death metal is not the same as saying that he is routinely called "The Father of Death Metal" as a nickname, in the same way that, say, Michael Jackson was the King of Pop.

Thanks, I think we need to make that clear. Also to reiterate a comment from the delete discussion, raised by both deletes and keeps, that any record company hype should not be considered a reliable source, which for me includes the titles of albums, but it was also pointed out (and not disagreed with) that we have to allow for some specialist music publications to have weight within their fields. I think we can draw up a pretty clear list of source criteria from these and the comments above.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Summary

There seems to be a consensus around the following proposals:

1. That the article be renamed "Honorific nicknames in popular music". That the lede be rewritten to reflect this. That this page becomes a redirect to the new page.

2. That new criteria are employed for the page that:

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

Editors should be aware that this means that a lot of these current entries are going to go. If you have reasoned objections to any of the above now is the time to say so, as I will undertake this in about 5 days as this has been extensively debated. Suggestions for tweaks and any grammar/syntax errors are also very welcome.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Sabrebd that there need to be clear, reliable, and verifiable sources for each nickname that is to be kept. For titles that are clearly recognized by the public, such as "Godfather of Soul" or "King of Pop", we are able to find numerous sources. If we can't find at least five sources to support a title, we ought to remove it from this article, because a valid title should have considerably more sources than five. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been moved as agreed and is being edited down to fit the new criteria (although this will take some time). If someone has been deleted and you can find a better or clearer source, please do so. I have posted the criteria at the top of the page.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so the point is clear, in the recent edits of entries to fit the new criteria, even if the source is "good", it needs to say that the title is/was in widespread use and was removed if it did not. Sources that simply say, "She/he is the definitely The queen/king of..." do not do this and so do not support entries. Also the title must be the one used in the source. A lot of the entries had played fast and lose with this, as a number of editors pointed out above.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Introduction

To whoever wrote the intro paragraphs, I have to say good job. I have visited this page a few times and the intro have improved alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preparationh (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and to those that have helped improve the section. I hope we have something that is now acceptable to most interested editors and which sets up the article.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

indeed it is fascinating information you've added there, Sabrebd, and it mostly reads really well - thank you! i'm still worried about this part, though:

In American culture, despite its republican constitution and ideology,[4] honorific nicknames have been used to describe leading figures in various areas of activity, such as industry, commerce, sport and the media; father or mother have been used for innovators, and royal titles like king and queen for dominant figures in a field.[5][6] Although the origins of these forms of music were in African American culture, the more commercially successful white artists Paul Whiteman and Benny Goodman became known as "The King of Swing" and "The King of Jazz" respectively in the 1930s and 40s.[7] These patterns of naming were transferred to rock and roll when it emerged in the 1950s.

it seems like something is missing: the use of honorifics in other fields needs to be followed by some kind of segue to their use in popular music. as it stands, there's no referent for "these forms" in the clause "Although the origins of these forms of music" until the end of the sentence. and then "these patterns of naming" isn't clear enough: do you mean the use of honorifics at all, or the phenomenon of white artists being given the most prestigious titles? i think you mean the latter, but it needs to be stated more clearly.

since i don't have access to the sources you're citing, i don't want to go too far in attempting to reword that myself, but maybe something like:

In American culture, despite its republican constitution and ideology,[4] honorific nicknames have been used to describe leading figures in various areas of activity, such as industry, commerce, sport and the media; father or mother have been used for innovators, and royal titles like king and queen for dominant figures in a field.[5][6] The use of such nicknames for popular music artists follows the same patterns or The use of such nicknames for popular music artists can be traced to ??? In the 1930s and '40s, as jazz and swing music were gaining popularity, it was the more commercially successful white artists Paul Whiteman and Benny Goodman who became known as "The King of Swing" and "The King of Jazz" respectively, even though these forms of music originated in African American culture.[7] This pattern of conferring the most prestigious "titles" on white artists was transferred to rock and roll when it emerged in the 1950s or The use of honorific nicknames was transferred?

but ... [scratching head] ... that comes too close to contradicting the observations about the role of honorifics in African American culture, so ... ??? but i hope you see what i mean about the "segue" into music, the referent for "these forms" and the need to clarify "these patterns". Sssoul (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The intention was to say that all was transferred. I thought this was clear from the context and do not see a way of saying this without just repeating it all, at the moment.--Sabrebd (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) maybe the modifcations i've just made in the intro will work? again, thanks & praises for the fascinating research and content. Sssoul (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

the reference to African American culture

I think that referring to African American as a separate culture is a bit insensitive. I'm black and I consider myself an American period. I don't do anything differently from anyone else based on my skin color. Why can't this be colorblind and just mention the individuals? If the same amount of white people had done this it wouldn't have been said to be a part of "European American culture". Why does everything have to become about race. People did it.

I'm also African American and I see nothing insensitive or inaccurate about the introduction. African American culture is a subculture in the United States, just as an other ethnic group or protected class. One can be part of both the dominate American identity and the more intimate ethnic identity simultaneously. Furthermore, the research indicates the dynamics of racism in early America contributed to the phenomenon of 'honorific nicknames'. To ignore that would be like attempting to erase an aspect of history. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps YOU grew up feeling that you belonged to a subculture, but that was not my experience. Culture is a shared experience, not a look. Why should we all be grouped together as if we don't have individual experiences? Our race doesn't determine our behavior or lives. Calling people a culture based on nothing but their appearance is ignorant.(173.60.208.15 (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

I question your logic that ethnic culture is based solely on skin tone. Ethnic groups differ in skin tone, language, customs, philosophy, religious beliefs, traditions and a variety of other factors. That's why America is considered to be the "Great Melting Pot"; a mix of smaller subcultures that make up the greater American culture. Describing ethnic groups as nothing more than skin pigmentation is horrifically ignorant. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

if i'm following this right, the statement "referring to African American as a separate culture" that the IP editor is objecting to is: "They were also particularly prominent in African American culture in the post-Civil War era, perhaps as a means of conferring status that had been negated by slavery". i agree with The Bookkeeper that it would be inappropriate to ignore historical cultural dynamics that shaped the development of this phenomenon; and i don't see anything in that statement that even remotely suggests that it's "[c]alling people a culture based on nothing but their appearance". but maybe the IP could suggest a rewording that would cover the historical facts without sounding (to him/her) "a bit insensitive"? Sssoul (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm objecting to is the idea of one's race (which doesn't biologically exist in the first place) being able to define their culture. Sociologist describe culture as a shared experience, or location. I did not grow up in an area where there was a noticeable ethnic majority, nor have I ever done anything simply because of my race. Culture based on geography is one thing, but when it implies that everyone of a certain race is automatically of the same culture, I take offense. Ones appearance cannot define their experiences or behavior. Yes, there are statistics, but those again often ignore individuality. I understand the historical significance of the distinction, but if the word "culture" was removed, I feel it would be more accurate and not assume that all people of that group participate in something. I'd prefer it not portray them as separate from anything other than Americans, which is how I see myself, but that's a whole other battle. The previous statement "Ethnic groups differ in skin tone, language, customs, philosophy, religious beliefs, traditions and a variety of other factors" , is exactly the kind of racial assumptions that are offensive. Someones physical appearance cannot give me this information about them. I, nor any of my friends who happen to be black have shared religious beliefs, traditions, customs or any other racially specific behaviors. Perhaps I'm from a younger generation, and have never had to deal with prejudice the way others have, but racial lines (particularly in academia, where race is constantly taught to be an invalid form of biological study and behavior) are dying out. The fact that we a melting pot as you say,is exactly why race and culture cannot be considered one and the same. One of them exist, the other is man made concept created to destroy ones personal identity amongst many other things.

The sentence is not about the contemporary world but the historical era between the Civil War and the civil rights movement, when in much of the US segregation was the law. In these circumstances it was very hard to have one culture, or for cultures not to be affected by race. Furthermore it might be considered offensive by some not to recognise the existence of a distinct and valid African American culture. As editors who know me will be aware, I am usually willing to bend over backwards to reach compromise and consensus, but the phrase is accurate and widely accepted in academic discourse. (try a google books or google scholar search of "African American culture"). I would not welcome a rewriting of history on the basis of modern sensibilities.--SabreBD (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No one's asking for history to be rewritten. That's not even a valid argument for people to keep making to me. I'm asking that you recognize facts and individuality. Yes, there are a lot of people who consider their race, their culture. There are also those who don't. Many of whom find these all encompassing terns that equate appearance with experience and behavior offensive. Why does being in the minority (which I don't exactly believe I am, but on this website I seem to be alone) mean your feelings are invalid? Especially if they're founded in facts.

again: please the propose specific wording that you feel would be an improvement, so that the rest of us can consider something concrete. (i know you stated that "if the word 'culture' was removed, I feel it would be more accurate", but removing the word "culture" from the sentence about post-Civil-War society doesn't leave us with an intelligible sentence, so you need to be specific about the exact wording you're proposing.)

meanwhile, it's not clear – at all – why the word "culture" suggests to you that "everyone in the group participated", or that it was "based on nothing but their appearance". that's not what the word means. Sssoul (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC

Perhaps saying that it was "Particularly prominent amongst African Americans" would be an improvement? Again, I hate that they are highlighted specifically because of their race, but I understand the historical context. Also, I'm not saying that culture only means appearance. I'm trying to say that if it weren't for their appearance, they would not be placed in a separate category. It's their appearance that people are equating with a different culture. Culture, as I said before is shared experience/location, ones race cannot dictate that. I'm saying that the way it is used, makes it sound as though blacks inherently or naturally experience things and behave certain ways based solely on their race. For instance, if someone were to say "American Culture", I would have no problem with that, because that's geographically based, and you will definitely see natural differences between people of different nations. However, if someone says "Asian American culture", that I would find offensive because it assumes an inherent difference based on their race, and are usually based in stereotypes.

re: "It's their appearance that people are equating with a different culture." not in this article/sentence, it isn't - it's about shared experience and values. you're the one who keeps saying it's based on appearance, which is a misinterpretation.

but anyway thanks for proposing specific wording; i hope SabreBD and other editors will state their views about using "prominent among African Americans" instead of "prominent in African American culture". (to me it seems ... highly idiosyncratic, shall we say, to view the new proposal as somehow better than the current version, but i won't argue with it if there seems to be consensus for it.)

and to the anonymous editor, on a different note: please remember to "sign" your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~), which creates a timestamp so that others can see who said what when. it makes it much easier to follow the discussion. Sssoul (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The previous statement "Ethnic groups differ in skin tone, language, customs, philosophy, religious beliefs, traditions and a variety of other factors" , is exactly the kind of racial assumptions that are offensive. You're also assuming these factors could not, or do not exist in shaping the individual experience, which can be equally offensive. Take language: for Spanish speaking Americans either from Europe or Latin American, many of these families are bilingual, a shared cultural experience perdominately by Latinos that may not be shared by White or Black Americans who's only native language is english and has been for generations. The same can apply to Asian Amaricans, as written language in most parts of the world are radically different from Chinese character or Kanji, something that may be completely lost on White, Black or Latin Americans, but would be a shared cultural experience by Asian ethnic groups within the United States. Acknowledging cultural diversities that occur as a result of one's ethnic background can also be viewed as a highly respectful, but taking a blind eye to these factors can be seen by sociologists as ethnic cleansing. Discussing the concept of 'race' and 'ethnicity', btw, are two completely different subject in sociology, with sociologists preferring the latter to describe any form of cultural distinction or variation among human beings. I'm 25, btw (Generation Y), and Ethnic relations, a sociology subject, happens to be an area of interest of mine in college, as well as Gender studies and feminism. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm obviously not promoting ethnic cleansing, and I'm well aware that race and ethnicity are two separate topics. What I'm saying it that most people experiencing something (if that's even the case), should not negate the validity of those who do not. As I said before, I'm a product of American culture, not African American culture. I don't even know what such a thing would be, other than stereotypes, and outdated behavior based on prejudicial circumstances. Yes, I understand that those things listed can have an effect of someone, my problem is with the idea of saying they all are effected by it. Equating race and culture, which saying "African American Culture" does, denies the possibility of people not behaving a certain way because of their race. Also, the reason I keep saying its based on their appearance, is because that is the only all encompassing treat that blacks have. If they didn't have distinctive physical appearances, no one would separate them into a different culture. They would have to base the behavior on their experiences and location which would be valid. Perhaps I'm not voicing myself clear enough, but my overall problem is that saying African American Culture to your average reader means "Things all blacks participate in and are aware of". That is simply racist, and insensitive. I'm not trying to deny people their heritage, I'm trying to acknowledge their individuality, and the fact that race is not a valid biological form of study. You cannot base a culture on something that does not exist. Instead of looking at the individual people who decided that nicknames were something to be implemented and favored, they have simply said "well black people are doing it, must be a black thing". (173.60.208.15 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

re "my overall problem is that saying African American Culture to your average reader means 'Things all blacks participate in and are aware of'. That is simply racist, and insensitive." that's your personal interpretation, and i strongly disagree that that's what the term "African American culture" means to "average readers". meanwhile, this page is to discuss improvements to the article. the sentence under discussion is about a feature of just-post-Civil-War society, not our personal experiences. the IP proposes changing

• They were also particularly prominent in African American culture in the post-Civil War era, perhaps as a means of conferring status that had been negated by slavery

to

• They were also particularly prominent among African Americans in the post-Civil War era, perhaps as a means of conferring status that had been negated by slavery

could some other editors please express their views on that proposed change? thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I see no compelling logical argument for the change, to say it is idiosyncratic is, I feel, putting it mildly, but I am prepared to accept it, as proposed, for the sake of compromise.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I also see no point in changing the current language of the introduction, as it is neither racist, nor insensitive. I find the IPs logic severely flawed, merely by academic observation. my overall problem is that saying African American Culture to your average reader means "Things all blacks participate in and are aware of". That is simply racist, and insensitive. By that reasoning all Americans would participate in and be aware of all things related to baseball, which has historically been considered the 'American' pass time. I'm an American citizen by birth and I hate sports. 'Culture' does not, nor has it ever, meant every single individual within that particular group has participated in or is formally educated in the subject. A better option would simply be to wiki link African American culture for our average readers. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Culture' does not, nor has it ever, meant every single individual within that particular group has participated in or is formally educated in the subject." EXACTLY! Culture refers (as I've stated several times not) to shared experiences and locations. These cannot be dictated by one's race. Which is why I'm saying it's wrong to consider people's race their culture. As far as linking to the African American Culture page, the fact that that article even exist is physically disgusting to me. While its information is worded as sensitively as possibility allows, its opinion that blacks our naturally distinctive from any other race is segregating and socially damaging.

Once again, your presenting the assumption that ethnicity (not race, as sociology dicates there is one human race divided into ethnic groups) cannot be a shared cultural experience. That is incorrect, and a flawed analysis of the subject, as culture has nothing to do with biology (something you seem to be linking to your argument) but a social development that occurs among all people in varying ways. A culture can be a shared experience by a number (but obviously not all) individuals based on ethnicity, age, religion, geographic location and other factors. Again, the celebration of ethnic diversity is not the same as promoting stereotypes, and disassociating any form ethnic cultural tradition is a very basic form of ethnic cleansing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be short, but are you even reading what I'm posting??? I only ask because I've said pretty much the opposite of what you're interpreting my argument to be. I am not associating culture and biology. I'm arguing against that entirely. I'm saying that associating race with culture gives the impression that the two are linked. If I believed that, I would never have posted here in the first place. Also, this idea that post-racialism is the same as ethnic cleansing is absurd and offensive. I read the page on "African American Culture" and it is the most obscenely offensive and racist thing I have ever had the displeasure of encountering. From that I am told by that I apparently don't speak proper English, dress like a gangster, have a separate style of music that I listen to and contribute to, that I eat unhealthy southern food, that I'm homophobic, that I have body issues in comparisons to whites, and that I constantly behave out of a revolt to my feelings of oppression. Not one of those things is true. It is absolutely mind-blowing (and I plan on taking my argument to that page now) that someone can look up a race and apparently get information on a group of individuals who may have nothing in common besides their appearance, and then think they know something about me. Why is it so outlandish that I find this offensive and racist? Someone on here has got to understand what I'm saying. (173.60.208.15 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

This is not the place for this. Please confine discussion to improving this article.--SabreBD (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly. I was simply giving an example as to why this term is not acceptable. I thought that was apparent.(173.60.208.15 (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

yes, please voice your objections to the article on African American culture on that talk page, not here. meanwhile, in this article, the source cited for the statement in question refers to a just-post-Civil-War culture based on shared experiences and values. the fact that you personally don't identify with that culture doesn't mean that no such culture existed, or that "average readers" will share your highly idiosyncratic [mis]interpretation of the word "culture". your argument has been given ample airing but hasn't convinced anyone else here that there's any compelling reason to change the sentence in question. i propose we all move on to more constructive pursuits – thanks. Sssoul (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury; God of Rock

Why isn't he listed. It has been stated that he is the God of Rock.

--Croon211 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Namie Amuro/Non-english speaking countries

• continued from my talk page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled by your recent revert of my removal of Namie Amuro. The second article actually says: "who went from singing at supermarket openings in Okinawa to becoming the reigning queen of Japanese pop music". I do not see anything here that says this is a title widely used and it looks more like all those references to pop princesses that have been deleted recently. If we are setting the bar this low I probably need to restore quite a lot of the deletions. I have looked for another reliable reference to her and this title, but I cannot find one.--SabreBD (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a low standard. Its a major news publication with a specific attribution. As I mentioned on the talk page long ago, in keeping a gobal perspective its important to keep a look out for nicknames that may occur in non-english speaking countries. And since Japan's recording industry is second in the world only to the united states, I'd say its important to have her mentioned. Oricon is the Japanese equivalant of Billboard but most of their information is in Kanji, so I doubt we'd be able to find a wealth of information in english, no matter how hard we look. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 13:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem if the article said something like "commonly known in Japan as the Queen of Pop", but by this logic any hyperbole used in an English language publication is being taken as evidence of a widespread title, a criteria we specifically rule out for western acts. I am very reluctant to revert your edits (a lot more than you are of mine evidently), but these are not the criteria that some considerable care was taken with when they were established. I think if we want to do it this way we should think about changing those. Perhaps you could open a discussion on it on the talk page to that end. Until that is agreed I think the decent thing would be to revert your own recent edits that do not meet the talk page criteria. But I leave that up to you.--SabreBD (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still reluctant to remove, as articles which discuss this particular honorific don't simply use hyperbole, but discuss its attribution through her dominace in the field. Another part of the problem per se is because in Japan, 'pop' is usually never referred to just as 'pop' but as 'J-Pop' or 'Japanese pop'. The Washington Post's phrasing "reigning queen of Japanese pop music" is much more likely than "commonly known in Japan as the Queen of Pop".

• Billboard: Leading the singles pack was "Can You Celebrate?" by Namie Amuro, the 19-year-old reigning queen of Japanese pop culture, whose "amura" look (penciled-in eyebrows, mini-skirt, dyed hair) is the current fashion template for Japanese girls. The hit sold 2.02 million copies from January to June, according to SoundScan. Aug 2, 1997. Vol. 109, Iss. 31; pg. 59,
• The Times. London (UK): Jan 26, 2005. pg. 9: "Comeback queen of J-pop" At the age of 12 Amuro was singing to shoppers for her local supermarket's promotional drive. A TV station later paid her to dress in a furry rabbit suit on a children's show. She was spotted by Masayuki Makino, a music promoter who would become her great mentor. He put Amuro in a teen group called Supermonkeys. While with this band she was noticed by Tetsuya Komuro -who made Avex Japan's most powerful idol factory and was supreme in the 1990s. He penned one hit for her in 1995, Body Feels Exit, and Amuro at 17 was suddenly bigger than Madonna in Japan.
• The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Feb 28, 2006. pg. 015: Both rank high - with Miss Zhang in first place - in the "100 Sexiest Women in Asia as selected by the Japanese version of Playboy, a magazine more usually devoted to busty American blondes. It had no place for the former Queen of Pop, Namie Amuro, whose blonde hair and deep tan once inspired millions of schoolgirls.
• Variety: The Japan-based Okinawa Actor's School produces many of the country's top entertainers. The school transforms its students into singers who have talent and mass appeal. The most famous of the school's alumni is Namie Amuro who has sold millions of her albums and won several awards...."The Okinawa Actor's School is having a major impact on the Japanese pop music scene," says a spokesman from the record label Avex Trax, the home to a number of Okinawan-born artists. The most famous school product with Avex Trax is Namie Amuro, the reigning queen of Japan's pop scene. Amuro, 20, went from singing at grocery store openings in Okinawa to winning back-to-back awards as the top pop artist in Japan after going to the school. As a solo act, Amuro has tallied album sales of 6 million and singles sales of nearly 11 million. Variety 369.n6 (Dec 15, 1997): pp38(2).
• Incidently, the Washington Post article is mentioned in Japanese education: selective bibliography of psychosocial aspects

There is a lot of ambiguity on the phrasing of Japanese pop/j-pop/pop in Japan. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Misora Hibari was "known as the queen of Japanese pop music" as well. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be a lot easier if the western papers just said "in Japan they call her" and I cannot quite understand why with all these uses they never say something like that. Frankly I don't know what to make of these references. If we use them we have to establish some sort of exception that can be defended, so that it doesn't open the door to 300 "pop princesses" from which the article suffered before clean up.

To answer your first point. I think if there are "exceptions" to the standard, as in this case, it should be that the article used supporting the artist actually expresses dominance in the field or genre (which is what our current introduction to this article implies). It was brought up long ago in the talk page archives that "a pop princess" is different from being considered/hailed as The 'Princess of Pop' (which i disagreed to at the time, but that was before there was consensus to have limitations). Articles for Amuro, for instance, describe her as the "reigning" queen and use sales figures over the course of her career to imply a longstanding cultural impact. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a secondary issue that comes out of this. How we deal with national titles. We sometimes give a country when someone is outside of the US or Britain. For Namie Amuro we have "Queen of Japanese Pop". Obviously if the Japanese call her queen, they do not mean of all pop but J-pop, but should we just drop the national part and take it as read? We don't assume that Britney is Princess of American Pop (although obviously she has a wider appeal than just the US).--SabreBD (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your second point: pop music in other countries is almost always specified, ex: Latin pop, Cantopop, j-pop not only because of nationality, but because of a specific cultural infection different from standard pop music. So Gloria Estfan is labeled "Queen of Latin Pop" but hardly - if ever - simply "Queen of Pop". Same rule seems to applies to Asian sects of pop music. The choice then, would be to either use the radio format or the full national title; ex: "King of Chinese Pop" vs "King of Cantopop" or "Queen of Japanese Pop" vs "Queen of J-pop". I prefer spelling out the National origin, but either way would be fine. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-styled nicknames

Are self styled nicknames allowed such as the "King of Hits" (Jonathan King). Donnie Park (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No sorry. If we have self-styled names there will be no end of trivial names. They need to be in general use to be notable.--SabreBD (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it depends on widespread usage. Michael Jackson has notoriously been accused of creating the title "King of Pop" for himself since it was coined. And even after his death some news reports still read "the self-proclaimed King of Pop". If there were "self-styled" nicknames, they would still have to fit within the criteria at the top of the page: widespread use by third party reliable sources, preferably by music critics or music-oriented sources (journals, encyclopedias, routine publications). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Aerosmith Bad Boys

Responding to nomination above. I appreciate the editor nominating them here. They have been deleted under "Bad boys from Boston" because this is an article about honorific nicknames, not just nicknames. Honorifics are things like family or royal titles; we also have some band names that suggest particular importance, so we have kept "Fab" or "Greatest", admittedly some of these are debatable, but I think it is pretty clear that "Bad boys from Boston" is just a nickname. They are already in as Americas greatest rock 'n' roll band.--SabreBD (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Elvis

Previously referred to as the honorary title of Elvis as The King is totally objective as can be seen in this reference and many others: [[8]] It has not to influence who is also as King of Rock and Roll because Little Richard is also in two sections. Therefore I propose to include in the list as explained above. --Damian963 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that calling Elvis "the king" is just short for "the king of rock and roll". In the case of Little Richard they are two different titles, it it were "the architect" and "the architect of rock and roll" the comparison would work. If he were the only person called King of rock and roll we could just put "king of rock and roll or just the king", but that wont work. I suggest that we could mention it where he appears in the lead, but otherwise I do not see an easy way of doing this. I welcome the thoughts of other editors.--SabreBD (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they call him the king is simply an abbreviation, as others who are considered kings of other styles are not simply called the king, in contrast to elvis if it is called the king.--Damian963 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Donn409 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Elvis was also called as early as 1956 simply, "THE KING". I have a article listed in a book where it even refers to Elvis as "KING OF POP". I've read articles calling Elvis "THE KING OF COUNTRY", "KING OF WESTERN BOP", "PRINCE OF ROCKABILLY", "KING OF ROCKABILLY" and "PRINCE FROM ANOTHER PLANET". ([User: donn409/donn409]) (User talk: donn409/talk) 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What, no Freddie Mercury?

Eric Clapton is apparently just "God", according to this page, but nothing about Freddie? At all? God of Rock anyone? Wow, this is shameful. It's from here that I found out Eric Clapton is known as "God", because prior to that I NEVER knew that was his nickname at all, yet I've heard "God of Rock" for Freddie a few times. What about Mike Myers' quote that he was a god who walked as a man? Well, damn, I have a new one befitting for Freddie: "Most Underrated And Overlooked Artist of All Time". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Eric Clapton is unusual in that "God" wasn't used as a nickname (roadies didn't greet him in the studio with "Alright God, 'ere's your guitar") but it was an honorific from the famously well-known London graffito, "Eric Clapton is God".

Mercury I wouldn't know about, except possibly "Squaddie's favourite". As always on Wikipedia though (see WP:OSE), the notability or not of one topic is simply irrelevant to another - we treat each individually. If you can source good references for either (and for a "fluffy" topic like this, they'd better be good) then by all means add them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Squaddie's favorite"? WTF? Who or what the hell is Squaddie?

"Hardest working (wo)man|band in showbiz"

Seems like an omission, but who warrants it the most? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Godfather of Goth - Peter Murphy

Peter Murphy as his Wiki Page says, should be mentioned in this list, his nickname is "Godfather of Goth"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Murphy_%28musician%29 <-- it is mentioned here, and its ironic that it links to this page, but his name isn't found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PullusPardus (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Australian King/Queen of Pop

The King and Queen of pop were titles given to the most popular male and female artists each year in Australia from 1967 to 1978 as part of the high profile Australian pop music awards. In Australia these titles are still often associated with the former winners. -AlexTG (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mother of the Blues

Ma Rainey was known as "The Mother of the Blues", if anybody wants to add it. Pyrrhus16 06:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Queen Of Pop Discussion

although many seem valid, why are there 5 names under Queen Of Pop Title??? it belongs for Madonna for a plethora of reasons, she is the most famous pop performer woldwide, Mariah and Whitney should go under queen of R&B titles and Britney should go under Princess of Pop as with Celine Dion...none can match up to the sigificance nor the importance of Madonna as a cultural icon, she is above the other names under the title although there is evidence to back this up. Madonna is the Queen Of Pop across four decades(as of this year 2010)in the indstry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinderpower (talk • contribs) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't make judgements between or among comparable sources here, since this is not what an encyclopedia is for. If a reliable source, such as a music journalist, has applied a title to an artist, we accept it and leave it up to our readers to agree or disagree; what we do not do here is to make that decision for them, first because we are not qualified to do so, and second because we trust our readers to be sensible enough to make up their own minds based on the evidence we provide to them. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors of this article do not attempt to decide who deserves an honorific, just whether there is reliable and verifiable evidence that they are call by that name on a widespread basis.--SabreBD (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous. The title should be only for Madonna which is very very often called so by various media across the globe. It's OK if Janet Jackson and Whitney Houston are also called so by several sources, but Celine Dion and Mariah Carey are never claimed "Queen of Pop" by any media. I you read the source for these two singers, In the 1990s, it would SEEM to be a three-way tie between Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, and Celine Dion,- This statement is clearly a 'probability' from an author and it does not mean that they are exactly "Queen of Pop". Also, why BRITNEY SPEARS??? If you look at the given sources, it is from the year 2000 (she record her debut in 1999, less than two years). If Britney can, why don't also mention Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, and the other younger performers for this title?? 13:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesatellite (talk • contribs)

I think Queen of Pop should be left to 3 to 4 artists. Madonna and Janet Jackson definitely deserve the title since they have been mentioned numerous times. Putting Britney or Lady Gaga in the same category as Madonna is outrageous. I am not a fan of Madonna but give her props when due. The woman has sold more than any pop artist. And they wonder why wikipedia always gets made fun of. It's because of these kinds of decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.155.146 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Queen of Pop

http://entertainment.stv.tv/music/160770-lady-gaga-sparkles-triumphantly-after-a-monster-set-in-glasgow/ http://www.metro.co.uk/metrolife/music/815281-lady-gaga-hailed-as-new-queen-of-pop-after-triumphant-o2-gig http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/feb/16/brit-awards-2010-winners I leave this so the person who owns this page can decide if Lady Gaga can be put on the category of Queen of Pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiós09 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC) YA! Please ... add Lady GaGa as the queen of pop AriandaGAGA (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Not sure what other editors think but the second or third sources given look as if they might meet the critera. The problem for old hands is that everyone is queen of pop for a short period of time, then their fame goes as we forget them.--SabreBD (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

May she can be princess of pop? AriandaGAGA (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

It's not case of being a bazaar involving haggling over titles; as pointed out above, it's about reliable sourcing, and however Lady GAGA has been described, as long as it's been by reliable sources and fits within the function and purpose of this article, it can go in. Rodhullandemu 00:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But I think it's the time .. with six number one hit .. to call her princes of pop! AriandaGAGA (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

As I said above, it depends on there being sources. I'll take a look at this myself. Rodhullandemu 16:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I added her using two of the sources. It would appear the title Queen of Pop is as diverse as King of Rock and Roll. Reminds me of Through the Looking-Glass and The Looking Glass Wars: The Red Queen, the White Queen, the Queen of Hearts, Queen Alice... The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's add her .... i don't see her NAMEEEEEEEEEEEE! AriandaGAGA (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA Pleaseee what happened with the queen of pop list? AriandaGAGA (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

fixed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Princess, not Queen. It's not right to see her next to Britney and Madonna. Why is Christina not a Queen, too then?User:Cprice1000 (User:Cprice1000 () 15:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

We can't just make up titles when reliable sources haven't done so; if there are such sources calling her "Princess" she can also be listed in that section, but we can't impose our own opinions here. Relativistic arguments don't help in the slightest. Rodhullandemu 15:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The most dangerous band in the World...

Guns N'Roses used to be called the most dangerous band in the World, that's why I think that name should be added to this article. What do you people think? Am I ok?

Kindest regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.18.198 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A entry needs to be both honorific and have a reliable source that indicates some kind of general use. Using the same source we could argue they could be called "The most precious group ever".--SabreBD (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering "The God of Rock"

There should be a God of Rock added to this list. If I may suggest, Jim Morrison of The Doors, to be entitled The God of Rock, because with his music, he changed the law, and showed the people of the world that Rock music has no rules. He showed, with his music, that profanity really doesn't have a meaning to it. It is just a useless word that society came up with, and he showed society that Rock music has no limits. Today in music we hear cussing and other suggestive language that sets the mood for the song; that music is called Rock; so we ow it all to Jim Morrison to be the creator of rock music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by --Ryanskal (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Ryanskal (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't invent these titles, we merely report titles others have applied. If you can find such a source that describes Morrison as "God of Rock", he can be included. Rodhullandemu 15:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

exactly! Oliver Stone wrote it in The Doors (film) Let's see when the new movie aboout the doors come out, When Your Strange —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanskal (talk • contribs) 17:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And every Doors fan thinks so, but that is still irrelevant. --Ryanskal (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC) The Lost Paris Tapes proof --Ryanskal (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC) from RS magazine

Foreign language sources

I don't think we have discussed this, but we have a number of entries that have sources in a foreign language. One the one hand I think most regular editors are keen to ensure this article takes a broad world view of the topic, on the other it is hard to verify all of these and English sources are the norm on English Wikipedia. The solution I suggest is to ask for a translation to go in the relevant footnote, as undertaken at note 125. I have requested this from the editor of the most recent addition for the Seven singing stars. If anyone has the language skills perhaps they could take a look at any for which we dont have translations.--SabreBD (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga should not be listed at Queen of Pop

Lady Gaga has been making music now for two years, unlike the others ones listed as Queen of Pop. One can be named Queen of Pop when they had succes for over 10 years. Lady Gaga was probably added by a fan, but she doesn't deserve to be in that list yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.70.36 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe your second proposition. Meanwhile, we have two reliable sources- not fans- which have described her that way. Accordingly, she meets the requirements for inclusion, and will remain. Rodhullandemu 20:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the first one. Some are easy to name like Bruce Springsteen. Check your best selling artist list. She's not there. At least get your "Queen" from there. The top ones mentioned are Celine Deon and Madonna. In terms of best selling albums, Whitney Houston and Maddona have the lead. Celine Deon and Whitney are known for other genres besides pop. Maddona however is known for Pop. What Pop artist hasn't been influenced by her. Lady Gaga isn't even on the list. What justifies to give her the title? MTV awards. Your only 2 sources that are based on opinion. No actual facts nor figures are listed in it. If you look at the second source, the comments don't agree. There are many Queens of Pop. Many of these artists earned the title at least 10 years into their career. Let me give you an example since there is only one King Of Pop listed. Now, we know Pop is usually dominated by female singers so that is why there is only one King Of Pop listed. The title first was given to him as "King of Pop, Rock, and Soul". He's even had albums named after his title. Can Gaga pull that off? No, because many would disagree. Madonna maybe can pull it off because she has figures to back it up. Yes, in the US Lady Gaga is known, but internationally, she's yet to even be heard with her 2 albums. Michael Jackson has been heard everywhere. Even after his death, news media, in all languages referred to him as so. They didn't even have to mention his actual name. When someone mentions Lady Gaga, the title of Queen doesn't come before nor after her name. Michael earned it through having the best selling album, the best selling remix album, the most American Music award, to name a few. Please hold off on Lady Gaga until we have figures to go along with it.

Like Jay would say...Numbers don't lie. Tupac and Notorious B.I.G. should have a title before Lady Gaga even has one. They have been more influential and mentioned numerous times throughout music.

I'm a huge Lady Gaga fan, but I agree she doesn't deserve the Queen title after only 2 years and 2 albums... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.26.25 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think that "deserve" should not have anything to do with it. Rather, it should be based on how well-known the name is as applied to the person. For example, I don't think most people today would consider Paul Whiteman to be the greatest or most important figure in jazz, yet during his career he was successful in claiming the title of "King of Jazz" and becoming known as such. Now, suppose you saw a newspaper headline that said, "New DVD Features Rare Footage of King of Pop" -- you would probably know who they meant. "New DVD Features Rare Footage of Queen of Soul" -- you would probably know who they meant. "New DVD Features Rare Footage of Queen of Pop" -- you wouldn't necessarily be certain who that headline was referring to. Some titles are more established as referring to specific performers than other titles are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of sources calling her the Queen are written by Lady GaGa MEGAFANS. I am a GaGa fan but she does not deserve the title. 2 number ones in the US and 15 million albums does not make her a Queen. Princess is good. Besides, everyone has been called the Queen, so add GaGa, you have to add Kylie Minogue, Christina Aguilera, Katy Perry, etc.User:Cprice1000 (User:Cprice1000 () 15:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

The Guardian is a Lady GaGa MEGAFAN? I think not, and as above the fact that other artists have not been given a title doesn't mean that we should replace what is stated by reliable sources with our own preferences. That is not the way to write an encyclopedia. Rodhullandemu 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I said a lot, not all. GaGa does is not the Queen. She is not anywhere near the same level as Britney Spears or Madonna.User:Cprice1000 (User:Cprice1000 () 16:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

Nevertheless, we do not decide which artists get which titles. End of. Rodhullandemu 16:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Chet Atkins

"Mister Guitar" and/or "Country Gentlemen". Both are technically nicknames, but at least the former conveys a sense of being in a class by himself with respect to his guitar work, and thus seems to me to satisfy the criteria for being considered "honorific." At the very least, given the rest of the artists listed here, I find it difficult to believe that there is not an appropriate "honorific title" that has been widely applied to Chet Atkins that would bring him into their company; I think "Mister Guitar" is as good a title as any. As for references, a quick search was unsatisfying, only turning up his Wikipedia page (which also does not cite anything for why he's referred to as "Mister Guitar," unfortunately) and a biography on his own web site. Cyberneurology (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga for mother monster!

She is called also Mother Monster! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriandaGAGA (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 200.232.182.213, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Include Roberto Carlos as Brazil’s Pop King. Ref: NY Times 15/04/2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/arts/music/16carlos.html

200.232.182.213 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Question: Where exactly do you want the change? —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj: Queen of Rap?

I have seen several references that called her the queen of rap. I do not have citations, but I have seen this several times by MTV and similar sources. I do not want to discredit her, but I am confused as to why she deserves this title... However, this article is for titles of given to musicians, and this title seems rather significant; therefore, some attention should be brought to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.234.54.114 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.1.233.203, 25 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I believe that Celia Cruz should be added to the list as the Queen of Salsa as she had been referred.

24.1.233.203 (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

source, I can't get the table right. CTJF83 pride 06:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

[9] is a better source.--Forty two^{You talkin' to me?} 08:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks.  Chzz  ►  22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Avril Lavigne: Pop punk Princess

Loads of sources call her it. I've only added two but I'll certainly be able to find more. Agree? Zylo1994 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Do any sources say she is commonly called this, or is it just that some journalists use it as a shorthand?--SabreBD (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure that there is a source that specifically says "she is commonly called the Pop Punk Princess" except for her own wiki article. Many sources do call her the Pop Punk Princess though, just as a nickname, based on her music and personal style. Zylo1994 (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done some research...

• NME actually say in an article "dubbed the princess of pop/punk". link
• NME again call her the "pop-punk princess" but this time in more of a nicknamey way. link
• This article acknowledges her title and even questions it asking whether it should be pop-punk or punk-pop. link
• This article from The Observer states that she has "earned the reputation as pop punk's little princess". link

Zylo1994 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So can I add it? Zylo1994 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the first NME link is probably sufficient, just a bit unsure what to make of the video with transcription and whether this is a WP:RS. I suggest you put it in and we invite other editors to take a look when they get time.--SabreBD (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Google's news archives has nearly a hundred sources that relate this nickname to Avril Lavigne (I only searched for the keywords "pop punk princess"), including major news and journal publications. I replaced the NME.com link (I actually struggled to find the keyword "princess" in this reference—so I hope that's okay) with three sources throughout the decade, and I included quotes in the references. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I was searching for "pop punk princess", not just "princess". NME was re-added by Zylo1994. Snap! lol. And my three refs meet criteria for inclusion. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Father of Country Music

Jimmie Rodgers, that's him. On his page he's given that title, but I don't have any source to back up that (other than Wikipedia's page itself).

It sounds a likely one I will see what I can find.--SabreBD (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I found one and added it.--SabreBD (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Gary Numan and Sir Lord Baltimore

Both have titles, the former being called "The Godfather of Electronic" (Although I cannot find a reference to this anymore on his article), and the latter being called "The Godfathers of Stoner Rock" (references in the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medamorth (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How the pop should be done.

Madonna should be the Queen of Pop. Britney Spears should be Princess of Pop. Christina Aguilera should be Voice of Pop. Michael Jackson King of Pop, which is done already. Mariah Carey s hould be in the R&B section because she barley sings any pop. Lady Gaga and all of her 20,000,000+ fans call her "Mother Monster" so that is a good title. Janet Jackson should be something like Diva. BUT ALL I REALLY WANT IS LADY GAGA TO BE MOTHER MONSTER!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltcauburn (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You really need to provide reliable sources for these titles, without imposing your own opinions here. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Indie Rock Queen Liz Phair

You all know that Liz Phair is known as the indie-rock queen... can add it? here are some sources

1- http://www.rockband.com/zine/phair-morningwood Indie-rock queen Liz Phair shocked the world...

2- http://www.americansongwriter.com/2010/07/songs-you-need-to-hear-liz-phair-bollywood/ After becoming the queen of indie rock with her debut album Exile In Guyville...

there are some sources at google... if wants to confirm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gas3191 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this trivial article and its fluff??

Theres no credence to these gimmicky "honorific" titles...thus this trivial article is not encyclopedic. Its also predominantly an American trait (presumably as the Brits have actual Kings/Queens they don't do it (certainly not to their own artists), hence for example the pioneering Heavy Metal trio Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple ain't "bestowed") whereas if an album of a US artist sells well they get the honorary fluff bestowed upon them by some tacky magazine editor. Theres also no correlation to success in 95% of cases. Trivial content is usually removed from Wiki. Glenn Down Under (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't about success. It's a phenomenon that goes back at least 100 years, to the days of Sousa and Johann Strauss. However, if you look at the "Article Milestones" section above, you'll see it has survived no fewer than four deletion discussions. And we do require credible sources, and fancruft is removed on sight. Rodhullandemu 18:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the article though?? Its fluff. Tacky honorific nicknames are trivial... hence this is undeserving of an article. Its also not standard as honorific names are predominantly an American trait. What is the point when its not about success?? The Bee Gees, the biggest selling Disco act ever, weren't called "Kings of Disco". Noel Gallagher would cringe at (MTV Asia by the way) telling him he was the "King of Britpop". A mention of an "honorific" name within a particular artist's article would suffice. Glenn Down Under (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cher

Should be added to the article nickname that Cher used to be called, "Goddes Of Pop" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowwie (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that title?--SabreBD (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I found this source that states Cher as the "Goddess of Pop".

http://www.last.fm/music/Cher --99.235.34.129 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Waluigi222, 26 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 2pac should be in king of rap.

Waluigi222 (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 Declined You haven't provided a reliable source for this. Rodhullandemu 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Waluigi222, 26 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Change Kanye West to Tupac

Waluigi222 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You still need a reliable source for this. Rodhullandemu 19:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hardest Working Man in Showbusiness

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500049.html

This title is older than anyone reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.126 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Godfather of soul is a honorific - hardest working man is not.--SabreBD (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thin White Duke?

The intro states "religious, familial or (most frequently) royal and aristocratic in nature". Would David Bowie's nickname fall under this "honorific" definition? StevePrutz (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Its a borderline one in my opinion, since it is really a nickname that happens to contain an aristocratic title. If it were "Duke of blue-eyed soul", then it would be more more straightforward, but definately worth getting some other opinions.--SabreBD (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is Dean Martin?

He is called The King Of Cool. Why is he not on the list? IGG8998 —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC).

Do you have a reliable source: preferably one that indicates this is connected to music?--SabreBD (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no Godfather of Polka

I searched for the person named on the internet and was unsuccessful (other than copies of this Wiki). Possible prank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.59.85 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this; while we assume that editors cite reliable sources, it seems unlikely that this person could have become so notable, and achieved an article here, unless the sources were plausible. I don't have the cited book to hand, but in general two reliable sources are considered the minimum for inclusion on this list. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

New Nomination: Queen of Pop/R&B

I posted this a while ago, but it didnt make it into the article, so Im putting it out there again.
Mariah Carey - Queen of Pop/R&B
1. http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20091014000129 --99.235.34.129 (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)