Talk:Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud

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)

​"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)

@Newslinger Thanks. I thought it was only admins who could convert a redirect to an article. Alexysun (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

make sure to wipe ur lips when ur done 151.51.194.153 (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

expanding the beef to a wikipedia talk page is insane work Cartt0nn (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

'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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I support the argument to keep the infobox per above editors 136.54.16.15 (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

@AviationFreak: complete agree here. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

I support keeping the infobox per the above. 2600:100B:B032:CFF4:2DA5:7570:DCE8:9FD8 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. Looks like someone else reverted it anyway. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

fr. Freedun (yap!) 19:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

I think it should, it spawned out of this feud. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes 46.116.97.20 (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lubaf I think it most definitely should. Spacecrunchies (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

Why does this page exist

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

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)

How do I delete this? There's no option to on the mobile app. WhataAndrew (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Plus, the page is formatted like an actual war. Spacecrunchies (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

•  Not done. There is no theme that we're aiming for and the template in use is specifically meant to avoid terms like "belligerents". ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

•  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)

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)

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

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 only cites Dr. Miami playing "BBL Drizzy" in his office for a tiktok video.

References

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

•  Not done. It's already under related tracks. Delukiel (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Reliable sources available? Delukiel (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

do you think if i made an article about EbonyPrince2K24 it will get approved? Freedun (yippity yap) 11:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

I saw wp:BLP1e somewhere so that rule probably applieshere Freedun (yippity yap) 10:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

so i won't make the page for now Freedun (yippity yap) 10:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

it.. kinda makes sense. drake references the beef. Freedun (yippity yap) 03:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It doesn't seem related to the feud, so no. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)