@Flabshoe1: Information on what led to the song, the writing of the song, the reason of the song, all that context is part of its background. The release is combined in the section as well because it is tied to the writing and recording of the song, as sourced. The artists' comments after its release is also part of its release, and that content includes information on the background as well. Furthermore, this is one of your many edits here showing you have a WP:NPOV issue. That is not supported. No where in the article is it sourced that the artist said that is the meaning of the song's title, plus the use of "mockery" is a POV issue. And as sourced in the article, that subject is only one of many referenced in the song.
Moreover, the political commentator has no relevance to music or music reviewing to be included, and this song has no political relation or larger cultural impact like "WAP" (which you mentioned in an edit summary) for a political commentator or commentator outside of music to be included in a reception section. It is just a diss song famous because it involves two famous rappers, like many other diss songs. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, with policies and guidelines, such as undue weight that that is violating. Lapadite (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- The "mockery" line did not feel like a POV issue to me, as that was the intention of the artist. However, by your request as you claim that the artist has not stated it is their intention, I am changing the lead to: "According to media publications, the song's title is a reference to the 2020 shooting in which Megan Thee Stallion was shot in the foot by Canadian rapper Tory Lanez."
- Additionally, there is no reason to delete information about context and comments made before the release and the composition/lyrics section, as you have done here. As you suggest, I have moved the comments after the release to the release section, but I am reinstating the deleted composition/lyrics section and the reception section. There is no requirement that a song has to be politically related for a political commentator's reaction to be included, especially when he is a major public figure. Flabshoe1 (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- You keep making the same tendentious, disruptive edits, which include WP:UNDUE weight and NPOV violations, adding irrelevant content, unsupported content, stating speculation as fact, and adding factually false information.
- The song's title is stated in the lyrics, which are quoted by multiple sources. The title is a reference to the artist's height, as the lyric states: "Bad bitch, she like six foot, I call her Big Foot". This is cited in the article. The lyric "get up on your good foot" is a reference to the Megan-Lanez case, not the title "Big Foot". And it is undue weight to note one lyric topic in the lead when the song's lyrics reference multiple topics, as sourced in the article.
- Do not restore speculative and irrelevant content which also violates the policy of WP:UNDUE, such as a political commentator, which has no encyclopedic relevance here. WP is not a celebrity tabloid, newspaper, or indiscriminate collection of info. WP is not a media outlet; it is not in the business of media speculation, sensationalism tactics, persuasion, opinion pieces, hit pieces and whatnot. And among other WP policies and guidelines, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Lapadite (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, a simple from the song’s title references to the song references the shooting would suffice in this case. However, this change to the lead does not justify removing relevant information from the background section as well as entirely deleting the composition/lyrics section. Additionally, the relation of the song to a public figure like Ben Shapiro is not an opinion piece or sensationalism, but rather a relevant fact to the song. Flabshoe1 (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- The song has no relation to politics. There is no relevant information removed from the background section. Once again, you continued making the same edits and violating the aforementioned policies including WP:ONUS. Lapadite (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- This section was removed by you from the article. I fail to see any reason for this section's entire removal from the article:
- == Composition and lyrics ==
- "Big Foot" has been categorized as a diss track about Megan by critics.[1][2] In the song, Minaj references the 2020 shooting of Megan by Tory Lanez with the previewed lyric "Bad bitch, she like 6 foot, I call her Bigfoot/The bitch fell off, I said 'Get up on your good foot'", referencing the shooting while also insulting Megan's height by comparing her to the creature Bigfoot.[3] Minaj also references Megan's ex-boyfriend and collaborator Pardison Fontaine in the line "For a free beat, you can hit Megan raw / If you a ghostwriter, Pardi in Megan jaw." She also repeats a claim Fontaine made in 2023 that Megan lied about having liposuction surgery, and accuses Megan of "fuckin’ your best friend’s man." Minaj goes on to reference Megan's late mother and suggests that she lied about her mother’s death, stating, “Hoe, the things that you’ve lied about, even pertaining to your dead mom, you don’t want them out, okay?". She further insults Megan's rap flow and claims Megan lied about getting shot by Tory Lanez.[4][5] The song ends with a minute-long spoken word section in which Minaj warns that she has "a lot of tea" and a "second installment" still to come.[6]
- Additionally, these sentences from the background section were removed:
- ==Background and release==
- In Minaj's 2023 single "Red Ruby da Sleeze" Minaj raps, "700 on the horses when we fixin’ to leave/But I don't fuck with horses since Christopher Reeves", referencing the "Stallion" in Megan's stage name.[6]
- In the days following "Hiss"'s release, Minaj continued to mock Megan on Instagram Live and Twitter, making fun of her shooting by Tory Lanez, mocking her use of one single flow rap flow, and accusing her of being a "pathological and manipulative liar" and a flop. Minaj went on to say "[You’re] bringing up 30-year-old tea from when this man was a 15-year-old child. You bringing up 30-year-old tea cause no man will ever fucking love you, and lying on your dead mother", referencing Megan swearing that she didn't have a sexual relationship with Tory Lanez, on her late mother, who died of brain cancer in March 2019. On Twitter, she continued to tease the lyrics to her diss track.[7][8][9]
- Minaj officially announced the track "Big Foot" on Twitter with a release date of January 28 at 6 PM Eastern Standard Time.[10] In the announcement post, she included both a picture of the single cover and of Megan Thee Stallion. However, Minaj then stated the song is not a diss track.[11] [...] Minaj announced that the song was delayed further for another six hours, before it was finally released on January 29 at midnight.[12][13]
- Finally, in the reception section, these lines were removed. A song does not have to "have relation to politics" for a public figure's notable relation to the song to be included.
- ==Reception==
- American right-wing political commentator Ben Shapiro and Minaj lent praise to one another's songs as his collaboration with Canadian rapper Tom MacDonald, "Facts", competed with "Big Foot" on the U.S. iTunes sales chart. Minaj tweeted her congratulations to Shapiro upon his song reaching number one on the iTunes chart and called it "not bad", and later endorsed the song in a tweet stating "Wait til they 'wake up' & listen to what Ben Shapiro is saying in #Facts."[14][15] Shapiro also praised Minaj and her song, calling her the "Queen of Rap" and stating it is "great to join you atop the iTunes rap charts". He also tweeted in support of Minaj in her feud with Megan Thee Stallion, stating that Minaj was correct for insulting Megan’s rap flow on "Big Foot".[16] Minaj's endorsement of Shapiro was criticized by fans and critics; Grant St. Clair surmised that the duo's association was a "critically-panned kinship" due to the negative critical reception toward both "Big Foot" and "Facts".[17][18]Flabshoe1 (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Flabshoe1 (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
"This section was removed by you from the article"
- That is false. I merged the related section, copy edited, removed the irrelevant, speculative and policy-violating content, and added relevant, sourced content - and you've reverted this multiple times. You seem to not be paying attention to anything I've said in this discussion that I started. I stated above in my first post, "Information on what led to the song, the writing of the song, the reason of the song, all that context is part of its background...".- You've only been continuously reverting proper corrections and contributions to the article, and repeatedly violating multiple policies and guidelines in the process. You've repeatedly ignored the policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS, the second of which tells you need to get consensus to include disputed content. Lapadite (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- These lines (which are all relevant, sourced content and not irrelevant, speculative and policy-violating) are not included in the edit you have linked. And all the relevant, sourced content that you have added I have actually kept in my edit here. In fact, all my edit has been to do is to restore these deleted contents.Flabshoe1 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
"all my edit has been to do is to restore these deleted contents"
- Again, are you listening? "You've repeatedly ignored the policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS, the second of which tells you need to get consensus to include disputed content."
- You are violating the WP:ONUS policy by repeatedly restoring disputed content. Lapadite (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
![WikiProject icon](#/media/File:WikiProject_Songs_7"_record_on_sheet_music.png){kind=small}
New enough redirect conversion and long enough. QPQ present. Hook fact checks out and is in article. Very good work in writing a hook that does not confront readers with a BLP issue over a topic that is basically a war of allegations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)