Talk:Black Eyed Peas/Archive 3

Moved to The Black Eyes Peas
Rambo's Revenge (talk)  16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Recent releases Elephunk, Monkey Business, The E.N.D. and singles off those albums have covers that say "The Black Eyed Peas".
 * Official bio uses The throughout e.g. "2003’s Elephunk was a breakthrough album for The Black Eyed Peas, vaulting..."
 * Grammy 2010 win called them The (grammy source)
 * Music certifiers ARIA, CRIA use The (NB. the BPI never uses "The" for any group)
 * Thank you so much! Finally. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical views
Full disclosure at the outset: I have no real love for the Black Eyed Peas, to put it mildly. I'm not alone in that regard. The fact is, I would argue, that part of the story of the Peas is the way they went from being liked (or at least somewhat liked) when they were considered a standard hip-hop group to straight-up hated by a significant number of critics and fans as their style changed. Of course they are also wildly popular, but the hatred is quite strong in some quarters and I think, objectively speaking, it's part of the Black Eyed Peas story (see this for one recent example of dislike).

I'm wondering if there could be some kind of general evaluative/reception section for this article. Of course it should include positive and negative views and those in between. In terms of a precedent for talking about the fact that a popular band is also disliked by a lot of critics, I suppose this section of our article on Nickelback is kind of what I have in mind. There are a couple of negative comments about the group or their music in the current text, but I think there's a larger phenomenon in terms of critical response that we should document. Just wondering what those who have actually worked on the article think about this possibility. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Superbowl singing comments on superbowl XLV"
Somebody please remove this. The grammar is horrible and it's silly besides. Kcambensy (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Please remove this section. It is only the writer's subjective opinion that Williams showed a preference for any political party, including the Democratic Party. It is also only the writer's subjective opinion that the Fox Broadcasting Company is "a republican network." Fox is a publicly traded corporation that lobbies more than one political party in the United States. If the subjective opinions are allowed to stand, please at least fix the grammar and spelling. "Democratic party" should be "Democratic Party". "superbowl" should be "Super Bowl XLV". "ffox" should be "Fox Broadcasting Company". "lets" should be "let's" within the writer's quote. "..when during" should just be "during". A comma should be inserted after "ffox" (or after the "Fox Broadcasting Corporation" correction). A comma should be inserted after clausal attribution and a quote (i.e., after "he said" and before the leading quotation character). The section title is not even capitalized correctly. Nusyscpr (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rob2234, 7 February 2011
The super bowl show was great, not amazing. Seeing that statement on the page prior to the performance did not sway opinion. Amazing dance team and performance would be accurate.

Rob2234 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Well, this is clearly part of the ongoing warring about how to describe this event. I'm not sure which of the many statements that have been up recently you're referring to, but it looks like editors are trying to work out some sort of neutral phrasing below. Note that we shouldn't say either "great" or "horrible", as those are personal opinions, and thus violations of WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for grammar
The first line reads "The Black Eyed Peas are a American hip hop group" but it should read :The Black Eyed Peas are AN American hip hop group" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checco715 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Super Bowl Half Time Show
I changed a sentence talking about the Super Bowl half time show a couple of times. I first rephrased it, and then I later changed it after the show to indicate that the performance has passed (I changed "The group will perform at" to "The group performed at"). Midways through my efforts, someone added the line "where a lack of post-production effects has revealed their stage show to be of inferior quality to a high school talent show." to the end of my sentence. I immediately removed that line, and I am glad to see the article is now semi-protected. I would like to remind everyone that although the songs that were performed live were sub-par when compared to the production versions, the group performed live using cordless microphones in front of a cheering audience. A production version of a song is usually recorded by professionals using premium equipment in an environment free from background noise (I personally know produces who like to record in the dark, because of a fear that a light-bulb might cause slight electromagnetic interference with the microphone). Additionally, with the advent of computer technology, there're many modifications to the recording that further enhances the quality. Although I am personally not a big fan of the Black Eyed Peas and disappointed by their performance, I would like to remind others that the main Wikipedia article is not an appropriate place for expressing your opinion. If there're many who are disappointed by there performance, than we could create a "Super Bowl XLV Halftime Show" section, and add details about their performance, and possible add a sentence along the line of "Many fans of The Black Eyed Peas were disappointed by the performance" aminy23 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: While I was typing up this section, others added similar sections. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia, but I would be appreciative if someone merged these sections. I also agree that that the "Superbowl singing comments on superbowl XLV", and I will do that immediately. As aforesaid, it is poorly written, and contains countless grammatical errors. I will delete the section now. We should continue a discussion on a half time show, and once their is sufficient content, we should consider making the section. aminy23 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding any feedback we give about the show, we do need to remember WP:DUE and WP:RECENTISM. While the Super Bowl half time is a big event, it's still just a short "mini" concert (I mean, how many songs did they even sing?).  Even if this was one of their worst ever (and, please note, I haven't seen it, haven't read anything other than headlines, so I have no personal opinion on this issue), it probably doesn't deserve more than 1 sentence of commentary in the article itself. If people keep editing back and forth on this issue, it might be appropriate to fully protect the article for a few days so that y'all can work out here what the article should eventually say.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ... "mini" concert? There is an estimate for the 2010 Super Bowl of about 106 million viewers.  For a general discussion it should be safe to assume that the 2011 Super Bowl is close to that number +- a few million.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcriddle4 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to ignore the number of viewers. Yes, the Super Bowl is viewed by many, many people, but the vast majority of those viewers aren't watching it to see the Black Eyed Peas. It is a mini-concert in every sense and should not be given a ton of weight in the article. A small sub-section with a couple of sentences is fine. A standalone section with several paragraphs is not. -- ICY TIGER'S  BLOOD  05:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "You need to ignore the number of viewers..." I disagree "...but the vast majority of those viewers aren't watching it to see the Black Eyed Peas..." Possibly quite wrong.  A number of people are watching the game for the commercials\entertainment and not for the football.  For example there is an article titled "More people watch Super Bowl for the commercials..."  I didn't know the names of the teams playing until the day of the event.  Sorry but it was a kind of a, the emperor has no cloths\the band cannot sing without massive digital massaging, moment in front of 100++ million people.   I rarely know the names of bands let alone what songs they sing but I do now know who the Black Eyed Peas are and not in a good way.  Maybe I am completely wrong about this but I really will not understand the music scene if the band actually survives this.  How many people still remember Roseanne Barr killing the national anthem?

Neither source shows that the majority of discussion of their performance was negative or critical. Of the two sources that are footnoted, one is kind of positive and the other includes negative tweets, but doesn't suggest that they make up a majority or any other level. That line should be removed or re-sourced. 128.100.83.251 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre
Its a small difference ofcourse, but the correct genre is called hip pop, not hip hop. Greetings from Amsterdam, Kwiki (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In The U.S.A the genre is known as hip hop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.235.152 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Page is Broken
The infobox coding is messed up and I have no idea how to fix it... Haha, hopefully someone will see this and take the initiative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.35.12 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

bumm bumms
Don't know how to include this from a neutral perspective, but it bears mentioning that BEP is a poster case for embracing a popular sound/image over interesting music. They've proven to be quite talented in past albums, but each seems to be more "dumbed down" than the last, with catch phrases rather than meaningful lyrics and a host of high-selling, high-image, but less-talented contributors.


 * I dunno... I've always thought of them as less concerned with the lyrics than the instrumental elements. I've always thought their rhyme and meter has been pretty forced, as far back as "Joints and Jams"; Will I Am rhymes "blue" and "do", and "playin'" and "demonstration"...  It probably would be an unavoidably POV contribution.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally think it should be noted the major differences between Bridging the Gap & Elephunk, and the fact the once positive & uplifiting messages of BEP (pre-Fergie) were completely lost & traded for (as the poster above said) "a popular sound/image," although I'm not sure it's possible to mention this without sounding opinionated. WiZZLa 18:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this article mention how Fergie pissed herself on stage at a concert earlier this summer?.. picture proof and everything.


 * Yes, I agree. Their albums used to have meaning and were very clever and the music was very well arranged. But now we have no-brainer singles like, "My Humps" and "Let's Get Retarded". A total shift in content and quality. Perhaps to appeal to the general public?


 * Isn't it possible that Fergie could have just been sweating a lot? It does get hot when you are jumping around. And what does that have to do with TBEP as a band anyway. It would go on Fergie's page, if anything. --Rachel Cakes 04:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fergie's appearance on American idol has been a shock she can wider and her hair collar was different i mean did she do something ? i wish i could find out ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.162.85 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection
Why is this not protected but Justin Bieber is? GoGaGaForGaGa (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it need protection?Bofum (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Concerts
Since they will be performing at many concert series (not just including their world tour), maube we should have seperate pages especially for the upcoming NYC Central Park and the IHeartRadio ones since these are rare occassions.--Cooly123 22:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Page needs protection from vandalism
Why isn't this page protected ??? :@ :@ :@....everyday people vandalise this page...
 * See: WP:RFPP Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do they broke up?
yes or no? Nicrorus (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course NOT..they are doing a break.just like they did in 2006-2008 GeoPerric

dj?
I wanted to correct dj to DJ but the damn article is locked! --86.157.125.171 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Kim Hill Edit request on 5 August 2012
Please add


 * former_members = Kim Hill (soul musician)

She was awesome, but the sands of time mean people have forgotten. And that's sad. :'(

DianaDiazSing (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo  A boat that can float!  10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Complete Lack of Criticism?
The Black Eyed Peas are continually being sued for ripping off songs, i.e. I Gotta Feeling, Meet Me Halfway, Boom Boom Pow, The Time, etc.

And unlike on other artists' pages, there's absolutely no mention of this whatsoever!

This trend of criticism disappearing from popular bands Wikipedia pages is reducing the reliability of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.44.36 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have to agree, I actually came to this article to see exactly what the criticisms were against them (there seems to be a fairly strong public disdain for them) and found nothing at all. It is relevant, and meaningful, information that should be included in the article. 24.212.155.102 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Article is misleading
This article is somewhat misleading. It leads the reader to believe that the Black Eyed Peas were unknown until Fergie joined the group and they released Elephunk. On the contrary -- before Fergie, they were a well regarded indie-skewing rap group. They didn't "break out" with Elephunk." Yes, their pop albums have been far more successful than any of they're purely rap albums, but, still, they were far, far from unknown before they changed their sound from rap to pop. In fact, before Elephunk, they were probably one of the most marketable and mainstream of the non-pop rap groups. Black Eyed Peas, A Tribe Called Quest, Jurrasic 5, The Roots, Black Star, etc. -- these are the groups that headlined and sold out mid-sized venues all across the country. The article distorts these facts by confining the group's pre-Fregie days to three sentences and then saying they "broke out" with Elephunk. This just isn't really true. When Fergie joined the group, they went from a popular, well regarded rap group to a Top 10 and even #1 pop group. In other words, they went from moderately successful to wildly successful. But they weren't struggling pre-Fergie. Nor were they unknown or without presence in the music scene. If you want to go back to the Black Eyed Peas "struggling artist" days, you need to go way, way back to just after they released their first album. But even then, indie rap had already become big; so the group was able to ride the coat tails of other acts (namely those on the Rawkus label). The Rawkus artists were truly the "struggling artists" of the genre. By the time "Behind the Front" came out, the genre had a fairly wide listenership and the group soon began playing substantial sized venues. ask123 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"...they went from a popular, well regarded rap group to a Top 10 and even #1 pop group. In other words, they went from moderately successful to wildly successful."

That's the definition of "break out". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.108.83 (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

apl.de.ap
I think someone should state in the article his political views. It is obvious that he is a communist because he has been seen wearing a t-shirt with the hammer and the sickleCatonB 05:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it possible the hammer and sickle has just been appropriated by lazy graphic designers and turned into a 'trendy t-shirt'? I mean, Che Guevara was a commie and his face has been commercialised and splashed across all kinds of items of clothing, most of the wearers of which have no idea who he was.

206.132.97.4 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Official website link
Official website link in the "External links" is broken (at least for me) and shows as "http://www.blackeyedpeas.com/%20BlackEyedPeas.com". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Улькиора (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Why the name?
Could the article explain why they chose that name? I can think of several explanations but don't know which is correct. It's imaginative and memorable whichever one it is. FCR 86.220.85.38 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

They are a bunch niggas. That's why 78.151.25.50 (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)