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 151.51.194.153 (talk) at 03:53, 7 May 2024 (→‎Who made "meet the grahams" redirect to this article?: Reply). 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]

  • I too prefer ALT2b; it connects their current beef to a specific song from 2013 - nearly a decade ago. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:06, 7 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]
Of those, I prefer ALT2b. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 4 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]
make sure to wipe ur lips when ur done 151.51.194.153 (talk) 03:53, 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

"Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud" talk page infobox feud
DateMay 5, 2024 – present
(1 month, 2 weeks and 5 days)
Caused byVaried, infobox supporters support keeping infobox while infobox opponents suport removing infobox
GoalsFate of infobox on Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud
MethodsTalk page argument
Parties
Infobox supporters
Infobox opponents
Lead figures

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]
@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 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]
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]

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]

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 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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drake–Kendrick_Lamar_feud&oldid=1222649840"