Jump to content

Talk:Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Freedun (talk | contribs) at 01:36, 6 June 2024 (→Add or not to add?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Kendrick Lamar and Drake
Kendrick Lamar and Drake
Moved to mainspace by Cadenrock1 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I've been monitoring this article for a few days now. It is actively being edited. The photos were used at the time of nomination, but have been swapped. Right now, at this moment, the nomination is good to go. --evrik (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. The songs track the feud. --evrik (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for leading with inquiry. I haven't been a huge fan of the section since its inception, but I admit it has dramatically improved from its uncited and originally researched genesis. A brief summary of song contents is necessary for a longwinded feud like this spanning many years and tracks. Cadenrock1 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a primary source of VIBE Magazine's 2014 winter cover story

Hello,

Following the trail of links to VIBE Magazine's original winter 2014 cover story with Drake leads to this article. The article cuts itself off early and the needed quotation seems inaccessible. Site says 'click on the arrows above to read Drake's Q&A'-- there are no such things. Perhaps an old feature of the site that became nonfunctional after a website overhaul?

I used VIBE Magazine's recap of the feud this year as a secondary source, but the primary source would be preferred, if anyone could get it or an archive of it. Cheers.

Cadenrock1 (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadenrock1, is this what you were looking for? Arrows are on the cover image, and I think it's on slide 4. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely! Thank you so much. I'll add it now. Cadenrock1 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who made "meet the grahams" redirect to this article?

Who made "meet the grahams" redirect to this article? Please delete this redirect admins. "meet the grahams" is notable enough to have its own article if "Taylor Made" is notable enough to get its own article. Thanks. Or delete the "Taylor Made" article.

Alexysun (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

​"Meet the Grahams" is now a standalone article. Any editor can expand a redirect into an article by following the directions at Wikipedia:Redirect § How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article (WP:RTOA). — Newslinger talk 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger Thanks. I thought it was only admins who could convert a redirect to an article. Alexysun (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
make sure to wipe ur lips when ur done 151.51.194.153 (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
expanding the beef to a wikipedia talk page is insane work Cartt0nn (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne Problems

Should Champagne Problems be listed? I, personally, think so but I might be wrong. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)][reply]

I'd say so. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add it? I only know how to use the talk page and don't wanna screw anything up. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok lmao i aint got the time to write the description if someone else could do that. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be listed. If this were about the 2024 Rap Beef in general it could be, but this is mainly about Kendrick Vs Drake. The only time others are mentioned is when one of the two main subjects is on the track as well. Zvig47 (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be mentioned somewhere, but it's not exactly a Kendrick vs Drake thing, it's more so Rick Ross vs Drake KaleidoscopicPrism (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Civil conflict' infobox discussion

Concerning Zvig47 and GLORIOUSEXISTENCE's point of contention over using the 'civil conflict' infobox for the article.

GLORIOUSEXISTENCE's original edit with the civil conflict

Version without the infobox Cadenrock1 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zvig47:
Seems like the person who wanted to bring it to the talk page so bad doesn't have anything to add to the talk page. This is ridiculous. Obviously the infobox was a WIP and not completed (I clearly expressed this in my edit descriptions) but that does not mean that the infobox should be removed. I have yet to see a genuine reason not to have an infobox. The conflict is not a protest or a riot (the main usage of this infobox), but the ability to show parties and background objectively helps the article. The only argument I have seen against it is an appeal to tradition ("it's just rap beef, it doesn't need an infobox!") does nothing but hurt Wikipedia, when it should be moving forward. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brother I don’t live on Wikipedia. I’m not waiting minute by minute for you to take this to the take page. There really is nothing more to say other than adding that infobox is very overdramatic. It should be reserved for actual conflicts, not a fued between rappers, and you may find that repetitive but it’s the only thing that needs to be said. It’s a major moment in rap history but you’re turning it into something it’s not. It adds nothing to the article and everything that it is trying to say is already said in a much more formal fashion in the article. Zvig47 (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I stated this before, but perhaps I did not explain my point enough. The infobox (like any other infobox) helps the article because it clearly shows a basic recap of the conflict (once it is fully filled out, I only really put a skeleton there) for someone that wants to know what is going on, but does not want to read a very long article about two grown men having a rap battle.
Could you answer why the infobox should be reserved for "actual conflicts"?
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes can be useful and Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation. Although they're not binding, they have some good arguments criticizing anti-infoboxism. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think info boxes aren’t useful. I think they are incredibly useful when used for a person's biography or an event. I do however feel it is not needed in this case. This is a verbal exchange between two people, the infobox presents this article as if this is an actual civil war between rap artists, when in reality it is a fued. I appreciate how you want to make this article more accessible for people and help them understand the page better, but I truly think it adds nothing and makes the conflict look bigger than it is. Zvig47 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing a point that I already clearly explained. I didn't add Template:Infobox conflict (which would imply that this is actually a "war"), I added Template:Infobox civil conflict (which does not imply that it is a civil war). Regardless, your argument is irrelevant as several reliable sources have declared this the "Rap Civil War" and a different editor added this to the article.
I have shown on several occasions the point of this infobox, yet you repeatedly close you ears and say "I don't see it! It adds nothing!". You state in the beginning of your message that "they are incredibly useful when used for a person's biography or an event," which this clearly falls under. Can you just let me add the infobox back so I can make this article better? GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics aside, I have to agree with @GLORIOUSEXISTENCE:, infoboxes are much easier to highlight the different parties involved in the conflict. I appreciate the infoboxes. Saying "This is a verbal exchange between two people" solves nothing, and is besides the point that an infobox makes the artists within the fued easier to identify. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the individuals mentioned as "parties" in the infobox right now actually a part of the feud? If they're just voicing support I feel they should be mentioned in the Reactions section only. Arcturus95 (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
J. Cole dissed Kendrick but then apologized and removed his song. That was the furthest extent I had in mind for the participants category. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I do not see much use in having that section of the infobox. J. Cole's involvement was very quick (a few days) and not particularly important to the broader feud. Mentioning him as a "party" feels like giving his part in this undue importance. Arcturus95 (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other information do you plan on adding to the infobox? This is a personal conflict between a few people. The template is clearly designed for political conflicts. Almost none of the parameters in apply here. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original intention was for protests, but that doesn't discredit that the infobox provides basic information about the subject for people that do not want to read a whole article about a rap feud. Your argument would be diffused if I created Template:Infobox rap feud and removed the political-oriented parameters. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other parameters do you plan on filling out? I don't see much purpose to having an infobox with only three parameters filled out, one of which essentially restates the title. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding The Midnite Wolf's comments that the infobox is not intended for such situations and does not offer much benefit.
GLORIOUSEXISTENCE if you want to concisely provide the highlights to someone then I would suggest doing that in the first sentence(s)/paragraph of the lead. Though as it stands now, I think that covers all the material you wanted to highlight. Nevertheless, it can always be improved upon. Arcturus95 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that if the reader can see the info in a sensible way as it is now, it doesn't matter if the infobox was designed for other uses if it works just fine here to display the necessary facts. BhamBoi (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It adds clarity and a simple overview of the parties involved. Calling that overdramatic is, well, overdramatic itself. Quieroempanadas (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is because the infobox has been changed. It's {{Infobox feud}} now, not {{Infobox civil conflict}}. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GLORIOUSEXISTENCE The 'civil conflict' infobox is used for, as the name suggests, civil conflicts, of political nature, such as protests. This feud not only has no political aspect whatsoever, it is far from being a conflict.
The information presented in the infobox is already present in the article, there's no reason to add it.
It would also set a precedent for any article about disputes between celebrities to have this infobox, which not only is unneeded but also completely changes its meaning. It's for significant conflicts, not for small disputes. 2804:14D:5C50:80D8:998D:1613:22B5:D34B (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The info box is either useful or funny, and neither seem to hurt the article. The infobox should stay! Onkoe (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onkoe: A lot of silly things on Wikipedia are not on articles anymore, for a reason. E.g. Guy Standing. It was funny to many yes, and it didn't really "hurt" the article, but it's gone now, and there's nothing you can do about it. This one likely will not be any different. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia should adhere to a policy that anything funny, despite its encyclopedic nature, should be removed. The Standing sitting case should be a model to avoid and perpetuates the stereotype of Wikipedia editors not having a sense of humor. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not traditionally one to comment on discussions like this. I merely created the discussion here to avoid continuing the hours-long editing war between GLORIOUSEXISTENCE and Zvig47. What I didn't intend to do was merely move the war somewhere else, spawning a frankly embarrassing amount of external and internal arguments over this infobox. One that, mind you, continued to be added and reverted after I made this talk page discussion. I care about having a civil and patient discourse. Please facilitate this by seeking to resolve, not prolong.
As for my opinion on the infobox itself, I don't like it. It's easy for something like this to snowball into an unreadable mess, and it's already getting there with how many rappers are arbitrarily listed as 'parties' to the feud (something which wouldn't normally need attribution if this template was used for its original purposes, i.e. documenting non-military civil conflicts, but hip-hop feuds are much more complicated and messier than the often stark divisions between protestors, counterprotestors, state forces, etc). Cadenrock1 (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the parties have become unwieldy and unsourced. If it's not done by tomorrow, when I'm able to properly edit (not on my phone), I'll rework it. I feel like most of the arguments against the infobox are not against the infobox but rather its contents. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, I think we moved past the issue on whether we need an info box or not, now if the content is viable content. A rework is in order but I really believe past that, the argument is resolved. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note (unrelated to my position on this discussion) that this debate now has a Depths of Wikipedia post. Expect further attention. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the template description: A civil conflict infobox may be used to summarize information about a particular civil conflict (for example, protest, strike, clash with police) in a standard manner. This template is designed for non-military conflicts, so please do not use on the entry of military conflict. While a rap feud is stretching it, this specific infobox is clearly not aimed for civil wars and other military actions. Something like {{Infobox feud}} could be created as better suited for interpersonal disputes, but the current template use is not egregious until such an implementation is made. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to agree with Arcturus95, ChaoticEnby, and The Midnite Wolf. Using the infobox is absolutely unnecessary IMO and I would argue there is zero need to use an infobox at all if the "parties" can easily be covered in the lead with one sentence ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can say this about many articles with an infobox, its just that this one is groundbreaking with its usage of "civil conflict" for a rap beef. It provides the information in an easier to read manner, but with the recent expansions, it cannot be covered in the lead with one sentence. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
groundbreaking is pushing it. it's also easy to summarize what's already in the infobox with two, three, four sentences: "The conflict escalated in March 2024 after the release of 'Like That' by Future and Metro Boomin featuring Lamar; other rappers have since released diss tracks about the situation, such as Rick Ross with 'Champagne Problems' and Kanye West with the 'Like That' remix, both towards Drake." "Drake's insults towards Lamar include calling him short and accusing him of things like domestic abuse, whereas Lamars' include alleging he has a secret daughter and is a pedophile." There. Most of what's in that infobox, summarized in a few sentences. All of these can be in the first paragraph of the lead section, making the infobox redundant. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the argument to keep the infobox per above editors 136.54.16.15 (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fine line between "groundbreaking" and "tongue-in-cheek". I think this article is very similar in nature to the Carlsen–Niemann controversy article, which does not use an infobox (and never did). Using {{Infobox civil conflict}} only serves to dramatize this controversy, and takes away from the encyclopedic tone that Wikipedia should strive for (which is especially important given that this is a high-traffic article). AviationFreak💬 02:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Just because this article beat the race to put a civil conflict infobox on a not strictly civil conflict doesn't mean that it shouldn't have one. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just limited to that particular article. Many of our articles with similar topics (Drake–Kanye West feud, East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry, Damon–Kimmel feud, etc.) use {{Multiple image}}. This is a precedent in these sorts of articles. I cannot find any articles of this nature that use {{Infobox civil conflict}}; its use here is just plain wrong, based both on precedent and the infobox's documentation. AviationFreak💬 02:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't know that Wikipedia wasn't allowed to change and must always fit previous precedent. I think that editing should be banned, all of the articles have enough content already!
User:Chaotic Enby noted above that despite a hypothetical feud infobox likely being more fitting than the civil conflict one, this infobox is fine for now until one can be created. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may need to pipe down and crank the sarcasm down a notch. We are editors meant to engage in civil discussion, not people caught between another beef. Anyway, that also raises the question on whether creating a new infobox is warranted; will there be enough articles that can possibly use such an infobox to justify its existence? As mentioned earlier, will it just be a watered-down carbon copy of the conflict infobox? ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The civil conflict infobox is also just a "watered-down carbon copy" of the military conflict infobox; I don't see why it can't be done again for a feud infobox (if they can't just use the civil conflict one). GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could think about using it as a basis, but other infoboxes such as {{Infobox sports rivalry}} use a different format, so there are perhaps more fitting options to consider. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, "fine" is a stretch. It's not as absurd as a military-related infobox, but a multiple image panel would be just as "fine". Also, I didn't know about the precedent, so that's a good point in favor of the multiple image. And of course Wikipedia:Consensus can change, but usually change needs a bit of a reason huh? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the infobox doesn't say THIS IS AN INFOBOX FOR CIVIL CONFLICTS ONLY in the displayed version of the article, and displays the relevant information adequately, why would we get rid of it? BhamBoi (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Note how the documentation states "A civil conflict infobox may be used to summarize information about a particular civil conflict (for example, protest, strike, clash with police) in a standard manner." It does not say "must". GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what the "may" means there. It means that if you have an article that deals with a civil conflict, you may use the infobox. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's clearly not what I was saying; no need to get snarky. I'd be open to considering a feud infobox if it was shown that it could include enough information to warrant existing as an infobox (is there much more than a list of "supporters" and an unsourced date range to be included?). At present, the infobox is full of unencyclopedic puffery (we don't even include "since" dates for supporters in actual civil conflicts, and a methods/allegations section is better suited for prose) and would be better as a simple {{Multiple image}} instance like most other articles of this type use. AviationFreak💬 02:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're sourced later in the article (as consistent with the rest of the lead). The Kanye reference was removed though, which I will add back. I agree that there should be more consistence with the entry dates. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AviationFreak: complete agree here. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m only here to say that this decision significantly harms readability over a petty squabble over the appropriateness of a template. The real solution would be to just broaden the template’s use. Removing it is silly and makes it much harder to concisely view the info. Really disappointed with the decision to put semantics and “lol they’re using the infobox for a rapper feud” lead to it being removed. This, or a similar infobox, should probably be used more frequently when they’re multiple parties involved in any sort of “conflict”. It increases readability drastically, which should be the goal of Wikipedia. Lightcrowd (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! I feel like the infobox significantly makes the article way easier to read, and removing such for semantics is idiotic. We should be making wikipedia easier to read, and a way to start with that is with the infobox. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping the infobox per the above. 2600:100B:B032:CFF4:2DA5:7570:DCE8:9FD8 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing infobox with Template:Multiple image

The "March 22" start date is not sourced later in the article. As for the infobox, I'd still be inclined to replace it with {{Multiple image}} (with images of Drake and Lamar), as is precedent on other articles of this type. I'd be interested to hear other editors' opinions on this proposal. AviationFreak💬 03:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the use of the civil conflict infobox is unnecessary. I think the infobox should be reserved for more serious things than a hip hop feud conducted through releasing songs. An IP editor including the infobox here is particularly silly, so I've removed it. I'm all for Wikipedia not being 100% serious all the time but this is getting ridiculously meta. Ss112 03:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was disappointed to see this one removed. Touching it in the actual article is understandable, but this is _literally_ a harmless joke. Removing it seems more tasteless than helpful.
If you're aware of any rules or guidelines regarding playful/'meta' content within talk pages (while staying on-topic), please link them here. Otherwise, I think the "meta box" should stay.
Onkoe (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article needs an infobox at all and should be replaced, as suggested, with the multiple images template. Anarchyte (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the infobox doesn't really add important information right now. Again, a specific infobox could be made for this, but the current one is really a stretch and not very necessary. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The civil conflict infobox is not the right template and is pretty characteristic of a disinfobox. I really don't want to have to return to this article and find someone has added back flags next to everyone's names again in the spirit of "adding color". ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing an actual {{Infobox feud}} right now that could be more adapted to this kind of dispute and wouldn't give the undue impression that it is a political conflict. It could be a good way to add some elements (such as the works published, the summarized accusations) in the infobox in a cleaner way, without having everyone trying to make it look like an actual war. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new {{Infobox feud}} has been created and added to the page, so I believe the issue should hopefully be solved. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby, looks like Bait30 just removed your infobox. Pinging you both for discussion to avoid another edit war. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks like someone else reverted it anyway. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to remove the infobox per the status quo of yesterday while discussion continues. There does not appear to be a clear consensus one way or the other on including it, and per a comment above other articles on similar topics use {{multiple image}}. (I also don't see why we've created a new infobox template for a single article.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, while the impetus to create it was here, this infobox is not exclusively for this article, but also for similar articles that could use an infobox. I could see it be used on, say, East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry where it could be useful to summarize the main participants on each side. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just doesn't make much sense to me to use it for interpersonal conflicts like this. I mean who do you include as main participants? Metro Boomin is included, so does that mean we should also include Boi 1da and Mustard? What about Jack Antonoff and Mark Ronson (lol)? Why is The Weeknd listed as a participant when the article suggests he was just collateral? If people think he should be in the infobox, then why isn't We Still Don't Trust You listed as a work? And should J. Cole really be listed under Drake? The infobox makes it seem like he was on Drake's side when the reality was he was just collateral and then he released a diss track but backtracked after realizing he was just collateral. There just aren't enough clean cut information to where an infobox can serve as a reasonable summary of the facts.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 22:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The civil conflict infobox works because the pages its used on have two clear sides fighting with each other. There's no question of which side the FBI was on during January 6, or when the Stonewall riots began. Feuds and interpersonal conflicts are a lot more messy, and an infobox here only serves to oversimply things. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article (primarily) covers the recent flareup. A note attached to the date (which is also present on civil and military conflicts, by the way) provides ample explanation for the start of the feud. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree consensus was never reached. And this discussion veered into whether or not the civil conflict infobox could be used in novel and unintended ways. That has been circumvented with a new feud infobox that is (for now, at least) specific to this page.
But the primary question should be: Is the infobox providing any value? I would still argue it is not. Most of the infobox is simply repeating the first two sentences of the page. The rest of the infobox is the participants and individual songs. The participants (as explained above) is stretching it at best and confusing at worst. For the songs, there is already a separate discussion on this talk page (without consensus) on whether it makes sense to separately catalog every track. Arcturus95 (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "Parties" section of the current infobox misleadingly simplifies the rap beef. Grouping together Kendrick Lamar, Future, Metro Boomin, Rick Ross, The Weeknd, and Kanye West feels like an editorialization of the conflict, as there's no source we can point to that proves these artists are acting as a group. SuperJohny64 (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the multiple people in support of the infobox being removed, I've done so. Discussion can continue. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reverted without discussion, which seems to go against a weak consensus above let alone the status quo from a couple days ago of not having an infobox. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion originated to discuss the removal of the infobox. The status quo is to have an infobox. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the status quo to keep the infobox and if we come to a consensus here to remove it? Let me remind you, we do not count votes here, we discuss the merits of each argument and so far there has been no merit to any arguments that say to remove the infobox besides semantics. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. For articles that have been around longer, it's the last stable version. For this new article, it would be where it started and remained until this debate started a couple days ago. I linked to WP:STATUSQUO for a reason, folks. That explains what's supposed to be happening here. BroadcastPs4, I might also advise you to read WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, as you are fundamentally misunderstanding it. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox was made to show the main arguments of the participants, but this has since been removed. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
March 22, 2024, is when "Like That" premiered with the release of We Don't Trust You. I've added this date to Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud § Full song chronology with a citation. {{Infobox feud}} does an excellent job of introducing the involved parties and works, and I support keeping it in the article. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full song chronology section

This section has been expanded since earlier today and now the earlier instances seem very speculative as none of these are mentioned earlier in the article as being about the other. Everything prior to "First Person Shooter" needs a reliable source confirming that the pair are actually alluding to or directly talking about each other, so please do not remove the unsourced section tag until there are sources confirming these are in fact aimed at the other. The wording is also a bit substandard due to its informal tone. Also, editors really need to stop citing Genius annotations or trying to reinsert citations pointing to Genius lyrics pages. In case it bears restating: Genius is a user-generated website and thus fails WP:USERG. Ss112 11:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the full song chronology section should exist at all. It takes up a lot of space and it's hard to parse. Nothing like it exists for the Kanye-Drake feud, for example. Cadenrock1 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think the chronology section should exist since its helpful for making sense of the feud, but it'll get confusing if it becomes a list of every song where either rapper may have mentioned the other. Adding songs to it without sources is potentially a violation of WP:OR.
Also, what's the consensus on including "7 Minute Drill"? Imo it should be there since most sources are including it in the beef but it keeps getting removed. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero need to include that chronology section at all. It's edging on being a collection of random verses that are barely linked to the conflict let alone each other. Like @Cadenrock1 said, it is hard to parse. The only songs that are relevant enough for this feud are already covered in some depth before the section, making this redundant ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that tracks like 7 Minute Drill and Champagne Problems should be included in the chronology, since those artists are listed as relevant parties in the feud. Since consensus seems to be against my opinion I won't add it, but I felt like throwing my hat on the ring on this particular issue since I think it's relevant info for a table like this, which I assume is to make an easy way to navigate the goings-on of the feud. PAPI I MISSED U (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the core diss tracks from when this beef initially started which the wiki page itself says March 22, 2024 should have it's own table and the table for Full song chronological should be separated into another table that is something like "Related songs" towards the beef. Because it doesn't make sense to have the date show March 2024 but the chronological table shows Dec. 31, 2009 as the start date. AustinVD (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add a length column and total length row to this section? Similar to "Track listing" tables for album articles. 2A02:8071:7130:C780:8D2B:4E38:206:3024 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lengths are outside the scope of this article and aren't really important to the content of the disses or which ones there are. I don't even think the album column is necessary as only two of the songs were included on one. Ss112 00:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity reactions section

Although Wikipedia generally refers towards people by their last name. I feel like the wording here should just refer to Metro continuously past the first sentence. Because of the close relation to Lil Wayne and Drake, there is high possibility for confusion if there is continuation of the name `Wayne` referenced. I think the phrasing on this should change to make it easier to comprehend. Thoughts? AustinVD (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further note, has Rihanna actually shown support towards Kendrick Lamar or is this speculation due to being in relationship with A$AP Rocky? Similar to the others, I don't recall seeing Megan Thee Stallion mentioning anything. A lot of the articles linked aren't that noteworthy either. AustinVD (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AustinVD, I will prefer to stick to mentioning them by their full stage names, because simply saying "metro" is a tad unencyclopedic in tone. and no, rihanna or megan have not said anything. the most involvement one could argue megan had related to this controversy was "hiss" and even that is pure speculation. No place for that here. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen other celebrities get added to that section even though it's just speculation. Honestly, does the section need to exist? If yes, I think there should be some rules in place so that it doesn't get messy with speculation. Spinixster (trout me!) 06:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I lowkey agree with this as I don't think the section needs to exist as it doesn't really cover much real celebrities outside of musicians which makes this section kind of not needed. If it can be edited to show other personalities then it would make sense. Though, I'm not going to remove it until further discussion is had. AustinVD (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more celebrities have been added to the list now, many of which are just speculation. We need to form a consensus on if we should remove the ones that have not publicly stated which side they're on or the encyclopedic nature of this section. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I agree with your naming preference. Especially with Kendrick alleging that Drake had sex with Lil Wayne's girlfriend, having another person named Wayne whose girlfriend is involved with Drake in this beef adds unnecessary confusion to the article. Exceed College Ruled Notebook (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ghostwriters as parties. Deception and lying as methods

I think adding ghostwriters as party to Drakes team will provide more accuracy. He had several writing credits. We may also add GW to methods for Drake. Deception / lying for methods. Psychological warfare also for methods.

I would also suggest adding a section on unaffiliated parties: e.g. producers 2601:C4:CA80:2030:A590:2CA7:BB69:D96D (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think ghost writers could be implemented into the article, but putting it on Drake's "team" is pushing it. This is so clearly biased. SpenDawg (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Yuno Miles to parties on Kendrick's side

Yuno Miles (an objectively well-known rap artist) dropped a Drake diss on YouTube [1]here. He should be added to the parties. I would do it myself but I can't due to the article semi-protection. Cartt0nn (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find notable and reliable third-party sources about Yuno Miles'... contribution, feel free to link them. (P.S. does someone wanna try working on that Wiki article?) Cadenrock1 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The track has gone relatively viral, and I personally think that virality is enough to be mentioned, but I do not think it has any sources outside of the video itself. I do not believe that this would count as a reliable source, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virality is not enough, we want it to have been picked up by other (reliable) sources stating its impact before mentioning it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also cant edit the page and was about to ask this but looks like Carton has the same idea. So since we need sources are these fine?: [2] and [3]. Someone should put the info about yuno miles because on TikTok and social media, at least, yuno miles is clearly part of the feud Freedun (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick Lamar, Kendrick Lamar, Drake, Kendrick Lamar, Drake, Drake, Kendrick Lamar, Drake. Literal bars. 2600:8803:C307:1800:D870:B4D5:1376:C2E7 (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fr. Freedun (yap!) 19:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Wayne’s girlfriend

Article incorrectly suggests Drake is accused of sleeping with Metro Boomin’s girlfriend- this has confused him with Lil Wayne. 82.36.117.70 (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this above too in above discussion about that section. I think it should be changed due to ambiguity. AustinVD (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"diss"

This is a colloquial term that shouldn't be used in Wikipedia prose. Popcornfud (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's a whole wiki page that covers diss tracks and continuously uses that word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diss_tracks. AustinVD (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:JARGON and WP:COLLOQUIAL. It isn't appropriate for an encylopedic style in running prose. We should probably write something more like "verbal attack" instead. Popcornfud (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a hip-hop feud, Diss (music) is the technical term, and, while it should be defined in prose, MOS:JARGON doesn't prevent us from using accurate terms if there aren't common replacements. Repeating longer formal expressions shouldn't be a replacement to using technical terms, especially if the former aren't used in sources. An encyclopedia should be precise, not formal-sounding. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> For a hip-hop feud, Diss (music) is the technical term
That's exactly the problem — per WP:JARGON, Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon. The word "diss" would not be understood by someone unfamiliar with the world of celebrity beefs and there's no advantage to using it over plain-English terms. It also sounds faintly ridiculous in an encylopedic context. Popcornfud (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Minimize jargon" does not mean "avoid jargon entirely", and, when the only alternative is to use each time a much longer descriptive phrase, jargon is justified. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Austin and ChaoticEnby - "Diss" is the correct term. It's precise, it's accurate, it's well understood, it has it's own linked article, and there isn't a more suitable phrasing for it. "Verbal attack" doesn't convey the same thing as "diss track". I would also disagree that "diss track" is a colloquial phrase - it has been used by musicians and journalists in the music industry for decades. Bugghost🎤:🐛👻 14:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

add the producers to the infobox!

I'm not an established editor so I can't but someone needs to go through and add the rest of the producers besides Metro to the parties. Cuz no way are we seeing Kendrick on a Boi1da beat or Drake on a DJ Mustard beat after this. I'll list ones I think are notable but not all might be notable enough for wiki standards. Since these are all people who directly produced the disses, the citation would just be the official credits.

Drake:

  • 40 (duh)
  • Boi1da (all)
  • Tay Keith (push ups, family matters)
  • Arthur McArthur (Taylor made)
  • Mark Ronson (family matters)

Kendrick:

  • Sounwave (all but MTG)
  • Cardo (euphoria)
  • Kyura (euphoria)
  • Jack Antonoff (6:16 in LA)
  • The Alchemist (meet the grahams)
  • DJ Mustard (not like us)

67.173.77.242 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think for some of these we have to have good sourced verification on them. Like we know some of them are true like 40, Alchemist, DJ Mustard, and others. But I am personally unsure on the Jack Antonoff as even myself am unsure where that info came from. So whoever adds this information to the table, please provide valid source for each one. Note: Genius website is not a valid source in my honest opinion as this is user edited. But I know Alchemist and Mustard confirmed on twitter. AustinVD (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AustinVD If they are considered reputable, Variety confirmed it.
https://variety.com/2024/music/news/kendrick-lamar-diss-track-616-in-la-drake-ovo-1235991213/
"Jack Antonoff did indeed co-produce the song with Lamar’s frequent producer Sounwave, a rep for Antonoff confirmed to Variety on Friday." 67.173.77.242 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add The Heart PT.4 to Infobox?

Given Kendricks reference back to the hook of "The Heart PT.4" confirming that it was a diss aimed at Drake, should it not be still under "involved works" despite its age relative to other tracks involved in the beef? 92.7.210.130 (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict Section

Instantwatym, I'm sorry, but your reasoning for removing this section is flawed. If it were because it's too soon to include it, that would be a reasonable action and I wouldn't have reverted it (I even alluded to this when I first added it). However, several points you mentioned make me question if you truly understand why that section is included. First off, Pitchfork is by and large a reputable music source per WP:A/S. I don't know what you've read there that led you to think they're satirical, but those days of "monkey pee" videos are way in the past. Second, Alphonse Pierre has written numerous rap reviews and culture articles, so if any "notable figure in Hip Hop" is necessary here, then he belongs right in the center of that circle. Third, a plethora of other sources - not even just the ones I mentioned - also have leaned towards Lamar as currently winning the feud; if anything it would be undue weight or cherry picking to suggest otherwise. PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the reliable sources list on WP:A/S, there is actually no consensus or prior dicussion on Pitchfork being reliable. Someone simply added it to the list per their own assessment. I could remove right now if I wanted citing lack of consensus or dicussion. Moreover, that source has never been discussed as a reliable source on the reliable sources noticeboard. Pitchfork aside, that section is clearly violatiing WP:CHERRYPICKING. There is no overwhelming consesus on a winner. If notable celebrities in the preceeding section are split between Lamar and Drake then how can a verdict section paint that as a one-sided win? Its contradictory. Instantwatym (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pitchfork has an extensive list of writers who have written for other reputable sources, an editorial policy and has been cited in numerous scholarly journals, books and websites. On RSPSS, it actually has been referred to as reliable in numerous RSN discussions even without a sole discussion about the source. Considering its strong credentials however, it's clearly not listed as it falls under the "we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious" category. Second, Wikipedia is a work in progress. I was planning on adding info that Pierre and other sources claimed it was a hollow victory today before I saw it was removed. Also, the celebrity section is clearly separate from the views of journalists, so that's entirely irrelevant. Third, if you believe there are reliable sources claiming Drake's the winner (I have yet to find a source in the same vein as the Rolling Stone and Pitchfork articles declaring so, which is why I didn't add it yet), you could easily put in the effort to include them. Even if it isn't definitive, no site policy prevents us from saying "Sources A, B and C say Kendrick, while X and Y say Drake." At the end of the day, it's subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't include the opinions and perspectives on who won regardless. Sources have offered their thoughts on a winner, so it's perfectly fair game to add. Anyway, I have no desire to start a "PantheonRadiance-Instantwatym feud" so I'm stopping here. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually scratch that, one last comment. Saw this Insider article that actually does summarize what critics said about the feud (K. is the consensus). I am now 1000% convinced that section should remain. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Still Don’t Trust You

Shouldn't "We Still Don't Trust You", the sequel to the initial "We Don't Trust You" album be mentioned? It has several disses from A$ap Rocky, Weeknd, and others. These were addressed in "Family Matters" by Drake. It should be important to address in the page for more context MementomoriDG (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should "BBL Drizzy" be included in this article?

Just asking, since it seems to be intimately tied up in this beef, even if it's by a third party. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should, it spawned out of this feud. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 46.116.97.20 (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lubaf I think it most definitely should. Spacecrunchies (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drake's house got shot up

Just check the news bro I don't have to say much about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:7300:3f83:e52e:baa:43aa:524e (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

Tom McDonald sided with Drake on 6 of may 2024 178.148.224.16 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you have a source for this? If yes, it could be a welcome addition. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024 (2)

Change "Parties" to "Belligerents" 2601:401:502:5AC0:9909:FB68:A395:13C6 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The {{Infobox feud}} template doesn't use the same parameters as {{Infobox military conflict}}, and this is not a war. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include organizations (OVO Sound, XO, pgLang) and their logos in the infobox

Include organizations like OVO Sound or XO in the "Parties" area and put affiliated people indented under the organization. Also would be a good idea to add logos (like the OVO owl) next to the organizations and people, akin to how flags are put in political/civil/military conflict infoboxes.

Might also be a good idea to distinguish active participation (dissing, direct shots at others) vs tacit support (shouting out either side of the feud), but I know that the waters are quite muddy. Parm-parm-parm (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad idea for a number of reasons, if for no reason other than it being a copyright violation to use the images like that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hypocrisy Section

The part about Kendrick threatening to pull his music for R Kelly is debunked. It was Top Dog and it was also in response to a Spotify policy, not R Kelly's music being pulled in particular.

https://pitchfork.com/news/kendrick-label-head-confirms-he-threatened-to-pull-music-from-spotify/ Jac2423 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lock this article request

Due in part to the twitter mention and ongoing feud, there's been some vandalism on the page– you can check my edit recently, had to remove "Hitler" as a party to the rap battle. I suggest we lock or at least limit who can edit this page for the time being especially as more updates come with the shooting at Drake's house. I don't know how to do that at the moment, but I hope someone else does. Starcores (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcores: Please make that request over at WP:RFPP. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know where to do that if I need to in the future! Starcores (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, that was done a couple minutes after you posted. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megan's "support"

Guys I'm really not sure how Megan dissing Drake months prior means that she supports Kendrick in this feud. Azealia Banks openly sided with Drake on social media, but Megan dropped a diss months before the beef, a diss that was a response to Drake poking fun at her shooting, a diss that has nothing to do with Kendrick and this means she supports Kendrick? What's the standard here? I'm sure the "support" of other celebrities can be contested as well but this one really doesn't make sense to me. Also...regardless of what Complex and some twitter users think, First Person Shooter ignited the feud. Not Hiss. Topumpaladybug (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already being discussed above at #Celebrity reactions section. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I agree with you that the logic for Megan's "support" of Lamar is flawed. It sets a precedent that anyone who has dissed Drake in the past in unrelated feuds is in support of Lamar, which would include Meek Mill and Pusha T. Instantwatym (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should've thoroughly read older sections before adding a topic since you and Spinixster have already addressed this! Hopefully, my post counts as some sort of vote to only include celebrities that have clearly voiced their support for either side, Kanye and Azealia being perfect examples. Topumpaladybug (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick's "support" of R. Kelly

Kendrick wanted to remove his catalogue not in Kelly's defense, but because Spotify was unfairly targeting black artists. Can someone change this? Kamo0606 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify more, Kendrick was arguing about why only black artists that ended up being creeps were given so much attention enough for them to be removed on Spotify, while Spotify keeps the likes of David Bowie, Marilyn Manson, Marvin Gaye, Mick Jagger, Steven Tyler, etc. etc. so many equally creepy rock and country artists that remain. Echonioni (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there are more comments regarding this situation. This article regarding Kendrick's defense of R. Kelly and XXXTentacion states that they received a comment from Anthony "Top Dawg" Tiffith, not Kendrick himself.
https://pitchfork.com/news/kendrick-label-head-confirms-he-threatened-to-pull-music-from-spotify/
https://www.billboard.com/pro/top-dawg-warned-spotify-ceo-kendrick-lamar-others-pull-music-hate-conduct-policy/ Latter-operation-820 (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed in Special:Diff/1227356825. I clarified that Lamar threatened to remove his catalogue because he opposed Spotify's announced removals of Kelly's and XXXTentacion's music from their official playlists. I've also removed the Rap-Up article because the relevant part of the article is a cursory summary of claims attributed to linked X/Twitter posts, which cannot be used for claims about living persons per WP:BLPSPS; Wikipedia cannot claim that Lamar supported Kelly or XXXTentacion because a social media user said so.
Finally, I removed two sentences of additional information about Kelly and XXXTentacion in Special:Diff/1227357109 as undue weight, because the extra coverage was disproportionate compared to the description of Chris Brown's and Tory Lanez's domestic violence incidents in the same paragraph, which was limited to the phrase "both of whom had been arrested for domestic violence". — Newslinger talk 07:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add JPEGMAFIA support of Kendrick Lamar

After meet the grahams dropped, JPEGMAFIA made a tweet stating he was no longer the biggest Drake hater, implying Kendrick took the throne. Peggy has a history of disliking Drake as a person and for his music, most notably making him the namesake of his song "Drake Era" on Black Ben Carson.

The tweet; https://twitter.org/jpegmafia/status/1786610765178507536
"I'm no longer the biggest Drake hater. Kendrick Unbelievable." 128.255.234.14 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not support of Kendrick, it's just saying "Kendrick hates Drake more than I do". For this kind of interpretation we'd need secondary sources claiming it counts as support. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2024

Drake and Kendrick Lamar started beefing when Kendrick said a iconic verse in an song called "Control" by Big Sean, During his performance, he called out 11 rappers by name—J. Cole, Meek Mill, Drake, Big K.R.I.T., Wale, Pusha T, ASAP Rocky, Tyler, the Creator, Mac Miller, Big Sean and Jay Electronica—and exclaims: "I got love for you all but I'm trying to murder you niggas / Trying to make sure your core fans never heard of you niggas / They don't want to hear not one more noun or verb from you niggas." He also proclaims himself as the "King of New York" and "King of the Coast", sparking criticism from several New York-based rappers. Lamar's Twitter account saw a 510% increase in followers in the week following the track's release, while his Wikipedia page garnered 200,000 page views. And the song was uploaded on August 14, 2013. So it is longer then one month Zafrihasan2009 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done That diss in the song "Control" is already mentioned in Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud#2011–2014: Background, but is not considered part of the current high-intensity feud. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove req

Requesting we remove "However, they have both since been inactive." in the not like us subsection. This is original research and uncited; also the use of "however" here may be a MOS:EDITORIAL issue. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page exist

This is formatted like it's a war between 2 countries. WhataAndrew (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Direct that question to the various media outlets that covered it with as much detail as a war. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I delete this? There's no option to on the mobile app. WhataAndrew (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored allegations part based on the template

The question I do have is why it was removed on the first place. It doesn't make any sense if it is also displayed on the Template:Infobox feud. Also, that allegations info can give some context for people wanting to know about what are the direct accusations. Goliv04053 (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The example on {{Infobox feud}} is just an example to show the use of all parameters, it doesn't mean we have to show them all on this article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby I do know that but the thing is: It was on the article when I saw it before. It got removed. (i mean that the example was made based of this article if you give a look). Still, it's real that both sides are throwing accusations on each other each time they are making a rant song. Removing that is removing what they are talking from each side. I am curious about when did it got removed. I'm going to give a look later. Goliv04053 (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we refer to "Wayne" as Metro Boomin?

There is a section in the article where Leland Wayne, stage name "Metro Boomin" is included but it exclusively uses his last name instead of his more renown stage name. Should this be changed? Neontd (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion about this under the Celebrity reactions and Lil Wayne's girlfriend sections. Since it has been raised independently so many times I personally think that we should make the change to be unambiguous but some people have suggested it is unencyclopedic. Exceed College Ruled Notebook (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, they should clarify that Leland Wayne is Metro Boomin's government name. Or say something like "Not to be confused with Lil Wayne", I don't know. I was confused myself when I read this section. Topumpaladybug (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page title/feud title

I've seen this feud be called "The Great Rap War", most notably by Rolling Stone Magazine, as it does go beyond the two artists named in the page title. Maybe it should be referenced in the first paragraph. Spacecrunchies (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the page is formatted like an actual war. Spacecrunchies (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made this edit as I don't think it's particularly controversial. If I'm wrong, anyone can feel free to remove it. But, please do keep the redirects.
— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 11:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be close to a WP:COMMONNAME for the topic, and is more editorializing than anything. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2024

add Kanye’s attempt at joining the feud add J. Cole and Rick Ross’ diss tracks add J. Cole’s apology LeightonPutman (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'overtly epic' names of the feuds history parts

Referring to @RealNuclearFish's edit here.

Shifting the history of the feud under one spoiler is a good change. What I don't like is removing the titles of different parts in the feud. Having brief descriptions of what happened in those years in the subheading names allowed for readers to quickly learn about particular areas of the feud. It also helped editors quickly differentiate separate eras of the feud chronologically, and the point of the titles in the first place was to help separate the feud into its different public stages. Getting rid of them altogether makes the subheading separation between the years 2011-2014, 2015-2022, and 2023-present seem trivial when it is in fact not. These are all very different stages of the feud (2011-2014 was the buildup and ignition of tension with "Control" along with a few overt disses, 2015-2022 represented a quiet period where Drake and Lamar stayed on good terms publicly but exchanged plenty of sneak disses, and 2023-present is the most recent and dramatic public flareup which resulted in the creation of this article).

This way is less intuitive, and I'd prefer if we brought the subheading titles back. P.S., the Drake–Kanye West feud article does the same thing. Compare that article as it is now to the current revision, it is much more intuitive to navigate. Cadenrock1 (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the titles of the feud history parts because I thought they were not really suitable for Wikipedia, as I stated, I thought they were overly epic. I have nothing against the idea of brief descriptions of history parts, but I feel like they should at least be changed to feel more serious and appropriate. However, if you think that the previous titles were good enough, feel free to return them. As for the Drake-Kanye West feud article, perhaps it has to do not with the titles of history parts but with existence of multiple spoilers.
Thanks for the feedback! RealNuclearFish (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and thank you for taking it in stride. For what I contributed, I did my best to avoid fantastical sounding titles like some outlets have labeled them (2015-2022 as the 'Cold War' between the two men says one outlet, for example). I'd be happy to change them to something more appropriate or serious if you have anything in mind. Otherwise, how do the subheading titles 'Background', 'Subliminal disses', and 'Re-escalation' sound (2011-2014, 2015-2022, and 2023-present respectively)? Cadenrock1 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2024 (2)

In the panel containing general info please change the title of the 'Parties' section to 'Belligerents'. It would fit much better with the overall war theme you are going for. Otherwise great work, the page is as entertaining as it is informative. EdwardRashed (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2024

Under the section "Not Like Us" and "The Heart Part 6" it is claimed that:

"The Heart Part 6" received negative reviews from critics and fans, amassing over 1 million dislikes on YouTube

The source for this claim given in the article cited on this page is this tweet, posted shortly after this reddit thread. There are numerous threads like this both before and after this particular thread, but this is the one "announcing" the 1 million.

However this is not something that can be confirmed. The public YouTube API does not give access to dislike count. Users seeing dislikes are using this browser extension. This extension does not in fact show the actual number of dislikes, since as previously established, the public YouTube API does not allow this. On the github page for the browser extension, they explain how the dislikes shown are found. The number shown is not the actual dislikes, rather it is an estimation based on the dislike data from users of the extension. The claim that the video has 1 million dislikes is unverifiable, and should be removed. Evilra (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Emphasized that the dislike count is only an estimate, as to follow the separate The Heart Part 6 article. Deauthorized. (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2024 (2)

Add first person shooter to the song list Throwoutthewatch (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done. "First Person Shooter" was not produced as part of the feud, but instead has been treated as a cause. This is something of an exceptional case, though, so another editor might wish to introduce it to the infobox at their discretion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "Like That" remix be included in this article?

Since both Future and ¥$ attack Drake (and J. Cole) I think this deserves to be mentioned separately in the "Related songs" section. Ragnarulv (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support that. Delukiel (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request for sentence that is no longer supported by sources.

In this update dexerto was removed as a source for the sentence "The track also drew responses on social media, with celebrities and internet personalities including Elon Musk, Dr. Miami, Ludwig and QTCinderella reacting." in the second paragraph of the ""BBL Drizzy" beat giveaway" paragraph. The remaining source [1] only cites Dr. Miami playing "BBL Drizzy" in his office for a tiktok video.

References

  1. ^ "Dr. Miami Is Looping Metro Boomin's Drake-Mocking "BBL Drizzy" Beat at His Office: 'New Favorite Song'".

The sentence "The track also drew responses on social media, with celebrities and internet personalities including Elon Musk, Dr. Miami, Ludwig and QTCinderella reacting." should be removed or replaced with a sentence that is more supported by the source. Froogels (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @Froogels: RudolfRed (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

drake's alleged daughter

Moved from User talk:Blaze Wolf

Citation in Drake-Kendrick beef. I had some bars written in 2013 about drake’s alleged daughter. --MONEYDWILLIAMS (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MONEYDWILLIAMS: I've moved your request to the proper page. Could you also clarify what you need? Thanks. Rusty4321 talk contribs 03:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Few more celebrities in support of Kendrick / Weight / Hypocrisy section

I don't know of any reliable news source who has covered this but the following artists have supported Kendrick:

  • DJ Mustard (this one is obvious)
  • YG (commented support on the former's IG post)
  • Pusha T (liked tweets about Kendrick winning)
  • Joe Budden (thinks he won, at least)

And obviously in support of Drake:

  • Akademiks
  • Ish
  • Mal

Weight

Onto the second thing I wanted to bring up is the weight given to the sentiment that this beef has gotten out of hand or that it reflects poorly on hip hop. My impression is that this is actually a pretty minority view, particularly in the "Verdict" section. Questlove has been mocked pretty extensively for his opinion, and given the section already says most commentators view Kendrick as the winner, I think that deserves more expansion. I don't think this means it's not worth including: on the contrary, I think it is, since Questlove is one of the greats and forefathers of the genre, but his opinion is given roughly the same weight and space as the rest of the verdict section. (Edit: this has been addressed and I think the current Verdict section is satisfactory.)

I also think we should include some views from people who think Drake won for the sake of balance.

Hypocrisy

I don't think either of the sources for that section are up to snuff (the Analysis section). 135 and 136 are just articles rehashing social media posts, the bottom of the barrel of journalism, and I don't think they are sufficient to justify the sentence they're attached to. Both articles just compile tweets to advocate their point of view. This WaPo opinion doesn't exactly reflect the same idea in the sentence but I view it as a better source.

I also want to note that personally I think that takes like the WaPo article and The Ringer's will almost assuredly be forgotten with time and won't age very well, and I don't think they reflect a great understanding of hip hop's ethos. This perspective may be completely useless to this article, but maybe someone more intelligent than me can turn that into something workable. Delukiel (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2024

add Rick Ross’ diss track to the list of works, as his name is listed but his track “Champagne Moments” isn’t 91.74.80.135 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date innacuracies

“ In September 2022, Joe Budden alleged Lamar dissed Drake on the song "Family Ties", released the month prior by Baby Keem and Lamar.”

The song family ties was released in August 2021, not 2022. Does the Joe Budden quote have the wrong date associated or is the Baby Keem song given the wrong release date? Memelephant (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date was wrong. Budden said it in 2021, per the linked podcast clip at the source. I've fixed it. glman (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EbonyPrince2K24

No mention of the Ebony Prince, the House of Ebony, The Mark Hotel or Christopher Alvarez? @77.249.116.246 good idea i think this should be added Freedun (yippity yap) 07:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources available? Delukiel (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that account has any relation with the feud. Even if Kendrick did use one of their images, and the account's accusations against Drake do align with Kendrick's, it's still a separate thing from the feud. Plus, it's accusations, and WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE guidelines apply. Spinixster (trout me!) 06:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do you think if i made an article about EbonyPrince2K24 it will get approved? Freedun (yippity yap) 11:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. If there's WP:SIGCOV for the account, and it doesn't violate WP:NSUSTAINED (which probably can only be decided after the feud has died down), it might be acceptable. Spinixster (trout me!) 04:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw wp:BLP1e somewhere so that rule probably applieshere Freedun (yippity yap) 10:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so i won't make the page for now Freedun (yippity yap) 10:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alright you know what I'm going to make a page that redirects to this. i think that would make sense Freedun (yippity yap) 03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U My Everything in "Songs Involved"

Why is Sexyy Red and Drake's "U My Everything" in the songs involved in the feud box? I don't think it should be in that section because there's no lines dissing Kendrick whatsoever, other than him rapping over the BBL Drizzy beat. If anything, it should be in "Related songs".

Edit: I only bring this up because I feel that the song involved box should be the songs between Kendrick and Drake. Sandwichcipher (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. It is obviously connected to the ongoing feud because of the brief "BBL Drizzy" instrumental, but nothing more than that. (Also I agree this song should stay in the "Related songs" section.) Ragnarulv (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it.. kinda makes sense. drake references the beef. Freedun (yippity yap) 03:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I feel like the songs involved section should be more towards the songs where it's more directed towards each other. He didn't really direct Kendrick at all on "U My Everything", and if anything, him being on the BBL Drizzy was more a shot towards Metro instead. Sandwichcipher (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean i see its already moved so lets just keep it that way Freedun (yippity yap) 06:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add or not to add?

Yo y all. Made Wah Gwan Delilah. Should this be added to Related songs Freedun (yippity yap) 01:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drake–Kendrick_Lamar_feud&oldid=1227492336"