Talk:Kanye West/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

bad picture

there are many other better and cooler pictures of Kanye West... That is a bad picture, and it makes him look funny. You should really change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.113.5 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

He is funny! He actually thinks he will be remembered as an artist when in fact people will remember him for his bloated ego and the sore loser attitude! --142.161.216.128 (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Exuse me. I thought the idea od wikipedia was to inform peoplr about facts, not personal opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.105.240 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) dont hate,kanye is well on his way 2 being a legend and his music is ground breaking and last i checked its ok to have a big ego aslong as you can back it up and boy can he back it up (plus he'z hot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.28.70 (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This picture is not gay enough or fishy enough.--142.161.216.128 (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileysan (talk • contribs)

Dave East????

Can i know where's the source that his real name is Dave East???? This is big blows because in every page that i search on the web, his real name is Kanye Omari West. Strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.81.36.112 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rubbish, because the pronounciation box next to it is for 'Kanye'. So somone must have changed it recently. 5150emergency (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have checked history of the page and his name and year of birth were both recently changed. Can someone revert them back please as i can't because it's a semi-protected page. 5150emergency (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Must have been some vandal. Probably put "East" since it's opposite of West. Not sure where Dave came from NakaXeta (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

britney noteworth

is it notable that kayne has been working with britney spears ? TomSkillingJr.

Fall Out Boy remix...

the article states a WAY more positive view of his verse, which is actually a small jab at the ambiguity of the song (his first line is "Now I dunno what the hell this song is talkin' bout. Do you?") and the general style of fall out boy. he does complement them though on the fact that they 'raced straight to the top,' but it's a rather biased point of view. it's pretty minor, but it was noticeable to me. tard nuggets.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahimi (talk • contribs) 23:13, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

MTV

Kayne West Live in Tomball Texas with three white kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.129.20 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This line: "In September 2007, West suggested that his race had to do with his being overlooked for opening the MTV Video Music Awards in favor of Britney Spears; he claimed, "Maybe my skin’s not right."

Needs to be changed to this: "In September 2007, West suggested that his race had to do with him being overlooked for opening the MTV Video Music Awards in favor of Britney Spears; he claimed, "Maybe my skin’s not right."

A small spelling mistake

Derogatory Comments Towards Mixed Race Women

I'm getting annoyed at the fact that everything bad about Kanye West keeps being removed. Here's the quote

“If it wasn’t for race mixing there’d be no video girls. Me and most of our friends like mutts a lot. Yeah, in the hood they call ‘em mutts”.

Here's the sites it was listed on. It did cause a stir amongst some black and mixed folks, hence why I know about it in the UK. http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.4685/title.kanye-west-calls-mixed-girls-mutts http://www.mediatakeout.com/Exclusives/Kanye_Mutt.html http://www.intermix.org.uk/news/news_061206_01.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero (talk • contribs) 12:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a serious controversy and he was obviously joking in the interview. Things that have short bursts of coverage but no long term historical significance goes to Wikinews. See also WP:RECENTISM. Spellcast (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem with Wikipedia. It's not your place to determine what is and is not 'serious' controversy. If it was controversial enough to become news, it should be mentioned. This is why all Wikipedia pages read like fan sites - because fans control the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose including that comment because it is too easily spun to sound negative when it probably wasn't meant to be. It rings very loudly of being taken out of context and none of your sources give it any more context. The fact is, the statement is not negative unless you spin it to be. I can see how the term "mutt" would be benign in ebonics since a mutt is a common term used to describe dogs of a mixed breed. And given the tone of the comment, he clearly never intended it to be derogatory. We don't need to sensationalize a comment just because someone else did. -- abfackeln (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

• The lead really needs to summarize Kanye West's career.
• Is the More awards (2008) section, really necessary? If so, some of that info. needs to be merged somewhere in the article.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

• At the beginning of the article, a source is needed for his name and date of birth.
• Some of the information in the third section appears to be OR.
  • Could you just post what section number, i.e. 1, 1.1, 2.3, etc. because third can mean anything. (Third second level section? Third overall?) Gary King (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't add that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Does Reference 7 cover all of this ---> "West was born in Atlanta, Georgia, where he lived with both of his parents. When he was three years old (as mentioned in "Hey Mama") his parents divorced, and he and his mother moved to Chicago, Illinois. His father was Ray West, a former Black Panther who was one of the first black photojournalists at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and is now a Christian counselor", if not, a source is need to cover this.
• Does Reference 10 cover all of this ---> "West took some art classes at the American Academy of Art, a Chicago art school, and also enrolled at Chicago State University, but eventually dropped out due to poor grades and in order to continue working on his music career. While attending school, West produced for local artists. He later gained fame by producing hit singles for major hip hop/R&B artists, including Jay-Z, Talib Kweli, Cam'ron, Paul Wall, Common, Mobb Deep, Jermaine Dupri, Scarface, The Game, Alicia Keys, Janet Jackson and John Legend among others. He also "ghost-produced" for his once mentor Deric Angelettie according to his song "Last Call" and the credits of Nas' "Poppa Was a Playa"?
• "West's style of production often utilizes pitched-up vocal samples, usually from soul songs, with his own drums and instruments", needs a source.
• In the 2001 section, does Reference 11 cover all of that paragraph?
• "Jay-Z admitted that Roc-A-Fella was initially reluctant to support West as a rapper, claiming that he saw him as a producer first and foremost" and "Multiple record companies pushed him aside because he was not the stereotypical hip hop artist", need a source. kayne west's number one fan is kchyna
• A source is needed from both Rolling Stone and Spin about their reviews on Late Registration.
• A source is needed for his eight Grammy nominations.
• Does Reference 23 cover this ---> "In January 2006, West again sparked controversy when he appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone in the image of Jesus wearing a crown of thorns. Later that month, he suggested in Playboy that if a Bible were written in the present day, he is famous and important enough to be included in it. "I throw up historical subjects in a way that makes kids want to learn about them", West claimed, "[I'm] definitely in the history books already"?
• A source is needed for his 2006 Grammy wins.
• In the Graduation section, "On July 7, 2007 West performed with the British band The Police and John Mayer at the American leg of Live Earth", needs a source.
• In the Political views section, the MTV interview he did needs to be sourced.

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is in need of a lot of sourcing. But, if the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay all done Gary King (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Gary for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Relationships

Just been reading this article and it says:

'In May 2007, West split from long-time model girlfriend Alexis Rainey.'

and then later on in the article:

'Kanye West and designer Alex Phifer ended their 18-month engagement in 2008. The couple had been dating on and off since 2002, with Kanye eventually proposing in August 2006.'

How could he have proposed in August 2006 if he only split from Alexis Rainey in May 2007? Or is that correct? Just wanted to mention it in case it is an error... 5150emergency (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Err...don't you mean Alexis Phifer, (not Alexis Rainey), bearing in mind his girlfriend prior & during his College Dropout era was Sumeke Rainey. Adaobi ^YELL!!_done 20:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Logical sequence

I wanted to point out that we need to re-organize the structure of the article. Contoversies should be in the same paragraph, mother's death should be integrated in one of the paragraphs to be intact with the chronology of the events, and Awards sections needs something else other than "Main article:". Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mother's death

This section reads too much like journalistic tabloid coverage, not an encyclopedia article. Who cares about whether the doctor left the first TV interview, or who introduced who to whom? That is not of long-term interest.--Parkwells (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonnaroo

Can someone (who is better at wiki editing than me) add some info on the whole Bonnaroo thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.169.46 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First, new discussion at the bottom of the page. Second, what? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 07:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ummm dylan campbell is his greatest fan :P kanye rules!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.53.192 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Aliases, Nicknames, etc

Regular wikipedians should add aliases for rappers into their articles. Kanye is often referred to as Yeezy, Jay-Z often known as Hova, Hov, etc. But none of this information is ever placed in the articles. 92.9.180.80 (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of lists. See the corresponding WikiProject and template for guidelines. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 07:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Great example of Wikipedia's inflexibility. It wouldn't be a collection of lists, but rappers are fairly exceptional in their usage of these aliases, since they're used so very often. Oh well. 92.12.22.16 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is actually very flexible, as long as a consensus is reached. In this case, there is. Just because West calls himself Yeezy now and then is no reason to add it to this article.

Aliases can alway be added, but not just any nickname. Besides, in his case it is not used often, West does in his music, but not in general. "Hello, my name is Kanye "Yeezy" West, aka the Louis Vuitton Don" doesn't seem likely now, does it? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not the only one to call himself "Yeezy" but even if he were I think it would be favorable to include those nicknames in the article. My reason being I know Kanye very well by those nicknames as well as other people and it would be acknowledgeable information to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavz4life (talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, no dice. First, there is the fact that there have been made general agreements over stuff like this, per consensus. Second, the argument that you and other people know him by his nickname is original research. Third, Wikipedia is not a democracy, articles are edited on their best interest, not what everybody want to. So please take another look at my other arguments before replying.

And please sign your posts with ~~~~. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of references to Kanye West by his aliases "Yeezy" and "The Louis Vitton Don" in print and online publications. Examples in Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10732900/people_of_the_year_2004_kanye_west/print) and MTV(http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1584891/20080404/west_kanye.jhtml & http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1596254/20081003/common.jhtml). These nicknames are used comparably to the monikers "the queen of pop" for Madonna which is listed on her page.

Also, the Jim Morrison page, for example, cites also known as names. Clearly, no one would walk up to him on the street and address him as Mr. Mojo Risin', and yet it warranted inclusion in that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.89.42.34 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Child Rebel Soldier

Someone should write two or three sentences about Kanye and the CRS. I think in this article you must be hinted at the fact that West is founder and part of this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.249.189 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Child Rebel Soldier has its own article, and it is linked in West's article. Per no rumoring on future events or releases, there isn't anything to mention.

AIDS for Kanye's grandmother

I really don't think that in the song Roses when he said that about Magic Johnson having a cure for HIV that he was saying that his grandmother had AIDS. The line was to point out that when regular people get sick, we don't get the same treatment as the folks with money.

Kanye's new album

I have heard rumors about a new album stirred up and I think if it should be anywhere it should be on Wikipedia first so if anyone knows..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavz4life (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because Wikipedia does not include rumors. Please take a look at the [[Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia|guidelines for future references. And sign your posts with ~~~~. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

i have a source its mtv i will pull up the article the first single is "Love Lockdown" drops on Itunes Monday http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/443833-jay-z-kanye-west-announce-singles

Arrest at LAX Airport

This morning, Kanye was arrested after getting into an altercation at the airport with paparazzi http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/11/kanye.west.arrested/index.html --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Still hasn't learned his lesson

There he is nearly getting into another scuffle with a paparazzo this time http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b32421_A_New_Kanye_Encounter_of_the_Paparazzi_Kind.html . Would it be alright to add it in the arrest section, especially it happened so soon after the infamous airport brawl? The police isn't pressing any charges on this one, by the way. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He isn't pressing charges, and it looks like he barely did anything. So I wouldn't say it's important. SE KinG (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

2008

Anyone else think the bottom of Kanye's "Life and Career" needs to be split into "(2008 – Present)"?
It's just that "(2007 – Present)" is starting to get pretty big, especially in comparison to other years.
- Mysteryham (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

rhymefest ft. kanye

kanye is featured in a single by rhymefest called "brand new" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.118.129 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Definantly not a new single. I heard that song on Wild N Out like 2 years ago. SE KinG (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

needs some changes that I cant make

there are a lot of sentences that need to be changed from a future tense to past tense. An example is in his political views section that ". . . west [is] scheduled to perform at the 20008 DNC in Denver." Just stuff of that nature that i cannot fix since the article is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.78.26 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What?

Fifth Studio Album, release June 09? Is This even true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.88.22 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I have been seeing the news around a bit more often: http://channelv.com.au/V/Article.aspx?ID=2517 –\•/– MysteryHam (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"He mentioned that he does have another album coming in June and he may be singing or rapping." Taken from reference. SE KinG (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

stated in an article its "Winter Spring Summer Fall" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.115.51 (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The Winner - Album, Remix, Compilation?

I was browsing for information pertaining to "the winner" cd that is available on amazon currently. There doesn't seem to be any info and was wondering if someone could add some info about this cd? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.74.243 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Freshman Adjustment?

This article makes no mention of his 2006 album Freshman Adjustment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.248.126 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a mixtape from what i know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.17.23 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Car Accident

I was just wondering why there isn't anything about his car accident since it nearly cost him his life and kind of changed his outlook on life? There is all this stuff about controversies and arrest and political sides, but no where is it mentioned that the guy almost died. Not even a little piece, i know people want to know about the more interesting things such as when he rants, or gets into fights at airports but cmon not even a sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELREY34 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have any sources mentioning this accident? --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 19:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

His song Through The Wire is about his near-fatal car crash. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Should definitely be mentioned. Scroll down to the page for reference. source. --Hevosen (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Arrested, yet AGAIN!!!

Honestly, this dude must have a problem.http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6jM6Ew2aZzgEa6d-4OeYtb5XEWQ --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous "Kanye" Redirection

Why on earth does the word Kanye redirect to this page? I don't care how great the guy is or how many people probably mean him when they search for Kanye; it's silly. If he only used his first name I'd understand (E.G. Madonna) but he doesn't so what's the point? Sixthcrusifix (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Small typo correction

I think: He was later relased "with no further action", according to a police spokesperson. was meant to be spelled: He was later released "with no further action", according to a police spokesperson. - Gideondk (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. - kollision (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

5th album

it says its in 2009, but it is JUNE 2009. i think thats important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by64.184.64.152 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

The article is confusing about his relationships and engagements. Also, I believe that the names are confused. His girlfriends were Alexis Phifer and Sumeke Rainey I believe, not Alexis Rainey.Cartman005 (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

Text reading:

Arrests

On September 11, 2008, West and his road manager/bodyguard Don Crowley were arrested at Los Angeles International Airport and booked on charges of felony vandalism after an altercation with the paparazzi[79] in which West and Crowley broke the photographers camera's.

should read:

Arrests

On September 11, 2008, West and his road manager/bodyguard Don Crowley were arrested at Los Angeles International Airport and booked on charges of felony vandalism after an altercation with the paparazzi[79] in which West and Crowley broke the photographers cameras.

I'll go take care of it now. Thanks. GlassCobra 13:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New user so unable to amend grammatical error.

Pipcell (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

His 5th album

First off, i clicked on the link to view the info and it was true. "He promises to release another album in 2009" Second, it does NOT give an album title. The College Alumni is false. I suggest that someone removes the title on this page and change it to "Untitled" or "TBA" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.169.17 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it shouldn't be in discography until it is certain and confirmed for release by reliable sources either or it's just crystal balling. I removed the sentence. Mfield (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin "Louis" The King Jr

[1] I guess the question is, will it stick? Should this be added to the article? -- abfackeln (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian American?

Why does it start with Christian American. Shouldn't it be american or even african american?

Sharmenator (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)sharmenator

Christian American?

Why does it start with Christian American. Shouldn't it be american or even african american?

Sharmenator (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)sharmenator

To say that he is "Christian" in the lead sentence is misleading. It suggests that his music deals mostly with Christian themes which is not the case. Fixing this now.--Agnaramasi (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Production work pre-Blueprint and first major label song produced.

This is noteworthy from last.fm profile http://www.last.fm/music/Kanye+West/+wiki

West’s style of production often utilizes pitched-up vocal samples, usually from soul songs, with his own drums and instruments. The first major label song he produced was The Truth by Beanie Sigel, and his first major release featuring his trademark vocal sampling style was “This Can’t Be Life,” a track from Jay-Z’s The Dynasty: Roc La Familia. West said he sped up the drum beat of Dr. Dre’s “Xxplosive” to use as a replacement for his drums on “This Can’t Be Life.”

Maybe someone should add this in somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.29.125 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

Shouldn't it be mentioned that he has changed his name to Martin Louis The King Jr.?
Dennin (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I still hear him go by Kanye West so... SE KinG. User page. Talk. 04:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

TMZ is not a reliable source

So the next time there is major news on Kanye that must be added to the article, please do not cite TMZ. Thank you. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

South Park

I think the recent parody of West on South Park ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishsticks_(South_Park) ) would be relevant to add. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really...--68.56.17.70 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on, adding "It has recently been revealed that Kayne West, is in fact, a Gay Fish." would've been awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.142.193 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Single with Kid CuDi

I think someone should add that he featured on Kid CuDi's new single "Make Her Say" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.176.204 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Political Views

In 2005 West blurted out on live TV that "President Bush doesn't like black people!" on NBC's A Concert For Hurricane Relief . On ABC's Nightline, he followed up these comments by saying that these comments "changed my life for the better. I think people understood me a little bit more." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.215.78 (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

From the article: In the song "Crack Music", Kanye West rapped, "How [did] we stop the Black Panthers?/Ronald Reagan cooked up an answer," a reference to the conspiracy theory that the Reagan administration intentionally placed crack cocaine in the ghettos of the United States.[68] It is not fair to assume Kanye actually believes this because he rapped it. Especially on a song like this. Later, he suggests George Bush gave Saddam Hussein anthrax. It's certainly possible he believes this, but that's not really for us to decide.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Confused about Alexis Rainey and Alexis Phifer

It would be helpful if someone could edit this article to clear up a point of confusion. Could there be some text added explaining that Alexis Phifer and Alexis Rainey are two different people (if, indeed, they are)? In the Graduation section, it states that Kanye broke up with Alexis Rainey in May 2007. In the following section, Glow in the Dark Tour, it states "Kanye West and designer Alexis Phifer ended their 18-month engagement in 2008. The couple had been dating on and off since 2002." Was he dating Alexis Rainey while he was engaged to Alexis Phifer? Are they the same person and the dates are incorrect?

Thank you for your consideration.

71.56.35.54 (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

.. Well, my level of consciousness has since raised. And I actually think that standing up for gays was even more crazy than bad-mouthing the president. In the black community, someone could label you gay and bring your career down. But that was me showing what black people are really about today, or at least what we need to be about.[70]

Article is from February 2002, not October 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.49.152 (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does Kanye Redirect here?

Why on earth does Kanye redirect here? That's absolutely ridiculous. This man doesn't just use his first name like Madonna or Jewel. There's no reason for it. I believe the town and the name have been around a lot longer than this guy. Sixthcrusifix (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, moved it to redirect to disambiguation. Mfield (Oi!) 00:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

well it's been changed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.137.159 (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article mistakingly says Blueprint 2 instead of Blueprint

Under Early career it says "West’s sound is featured heavily on Jay-Z's critically acclaimed album The Blueprint 2, released on September 11, 2001." But the 2 shouldn't be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.31.28 (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The change was made by an editor who has been vandalising a number of articles. I have fixed the problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

DJ Jack Beatz presents: Kanye West - The Winner

Recently I came across this CD in a discount bin. It sounds like it was genuine Kanye West rare stuff (freestyle, interludes, skits, etc; 18 tracks altogether) but the whole packing and design are a bit hokey. It was released by The Hip Hop Village but at this moment the "products" section on their web is under construction so I can't check. The product bar code is 5060160720519. Any idea what this is? Is it real or fake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.30.81 (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New Single Street Lights

You guys should add it because i don't know how to but its out with the cover here http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6lV5hzNR1fU/SS-4TpCNyEI/AAAAAAAABlw/EHiUgNfUc88/s400/street+lignts.jpeg and with the video on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WildWolf012 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC) WildWolf012 (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Voice Type

I think someone should add his voice type to main section. Anyone have any idea what his voice type is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.76.110 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.176.203 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mother's Death

Is it really necessary for the Mother's Death section, I mean you don't see Father's death on Jay-Z' Wikipedia page... Although it's widely known that he was very close to his mother and her death may have had a big impact on his new style of music it's kind of weird to include it in his biography.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.176.203 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's worth a mention at least. --24.46.21.197 (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems a little odd to have its own section. I think a short mention it in the "life and career" bit would suffice. Crashandspin (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

First major label song produced

The article states that Kanye's first major label production was on Beanie Sigel's The Truth album, which was released in 2000. However, the Jermaine Dupri album Life in 1472 features a track credited to Kanye, and that was released in 1998 by Columbia Records, so that would be his first major label song in actuality. 98.210.151.12 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West Late Registration 2

Kanye West Late Registration 2 - 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.49.111 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone proofread...

Could someone proofread this page? I've noticed a few errors that were easily filled with a spellchecker, and while not necessarily incorrect, they weren't correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.64.7 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone rewrite this sentence? It's great that it contains so many facts, but is terribly difficult to follow: "He handed the mic back to an apparently distraught Swift who was unable to finish her acceptance speech during the live broadcast after West received a negative reaction from the audience." Nikki0x4d (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, Nikki0x4d. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghostwriters

I've heard that many of West's songs are ghostwritten. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie3039 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes his songs are mostly written by Casper, Slimer, and Hamlet's father.--98.125.188.151 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

^ Good one! . . . . Not. I have heard the same though. 98.196.78.26 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You need a reliable source. Rumors aren't enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Full protection

Enough is enough. The article was already semi protected for unconnected vandalism and that should have been enough to prevent this drive by vandalism, but multiple established editors have been engaged in extreme violations of our BLP policy, repeatedly posting content that is defamatory and attacks the subject directly. Please note that the WP:BLP policy applies also to talk pages and posting of such content here or anywhere else will not be tolerated. The full protection can be dropped back to semi once the next big story comes along and people forget about this/calm down. In the mean time use {{editprotected}} to request changes. Mfield (Oi!) 05:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. I understand Wikipedia is not censored, but your introduction is quite unnecessary. There is no need to take that attitude (you know this as an established editor and administrator) with what you know is a controversial page at the moment. If anything, you could've been nicer about it. I do agree with protection, however. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor had altered my comment hence the introduction you saw. Mfield (Oi!) 15:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Kanye appologized via his blog. This sentence is currently unsourced. I was going to add a cite to a reliable source: Kanye West Apologizes To Taylor Swift For VMA Rant, but the article cannot be edited. Instead of blanket protection of an article, why don't we topic ban editors who are unable to abide by policies? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been cited now, thanks. I think protection is the best course of action here. There were multiple established editors posting, there is no way to predict which editors would add the defamatory content and so we cannot topic ban anyone before they edit. As such, there was always going to be defamatory and extremely unsavoury material on the page. The only answer was full protection. Woody (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith until an editor violates the rules and then topic ban the editor? I've never had a WP:BLP violation against me so I don't see why I should be punished for the actions of others.

Also, isn't the type of editor who can't follow WP:BLP on this article the same type of editor who's inclined to violate WP:BLP on other articles? If their actions aren't specifically addressed, then aren't they likely to simply do it again some other time? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith stretches only so far, the horrific page history is a testament to this. The editors making the violations were not the usual candidates which is why the protection is the only option. If the page is unprotected, no doubt it would have BLP violations on it for half the day, the other half spent reverting them. Until flagged revisions is implemented this is the only option. Woody (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the page should be semi-protected. Vandals can be dealt with (warnings, banning, etc.) and those making a mistake with good intentions can be showed what they did wrong. Vandals will vandalize a page at one time or another. People violating WP:BLP will violate it some place else, possibility without being seen. I think people are watching this page enough so violations will be reverted within minutes (if not seconds). There are always some people who want to make it better. NeoJustin ^{(Talk page)} 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanye Drunk at 2006 VMAs

Shouldn't the article note that West admitted he was drunk during his rant after losing at the 2006 VMAs? Here's the link from MTV: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1544794/20061103/west_kanye.jhtml --Mikeman67 (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy's Page?

This is just an idea. Maybe, we should just create a page with all of his controversies on it. NeoJustin ^{(Talk page)} 06:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I don't think it would fly because it would be kinda difficult to write a page about his controversies without it havin' a point of view. Just my opinion though. Crash Underride 07:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the controversies pages have been AFD'd into more of a neutral "Public perception" page. However, I really don't think there's enough to warrant a separate page for him. What probably needs to be done is more summarizing and cutting down some unnecessary details. For example, is it really that relevant that Kayne didn't win the 2006 Grammy but U2 did and he opened for them? In retrospect to his entire career, that's a pretty minor point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That he did not win the Grammy for Album of the Year seems important...since he said he would "really have a problem" if he did not win that award. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How about a controversy section? Currently, there is a section titled "Awards and controversy" or something to that effect, but only spans the time around 2006. To find more current stuff, you have to scroll down to a section with a title that does not say anything about controversy. This should all be grouped into a "Kanye controversy" section, in order to make the page more navigable. ---Debollweevil (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

These are discouraged in biographies (see Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise), as they tend to be places where people tend to want to add POV criticism. The preferred way to document this type of information is to work it in to various places in the article. Kanye is not known for his criticism, he's known for being a recording artist and producer. — Mike :  tlk  18:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that they are discouraged, but the point I'm disagreeing with is that he is not known for his controversy... The article just had to be locked within the last 24 hours due to his most recent bout! Maybe this is the exception to the "generally discouraged" rule? The criticism/ praise guidelines say that notability is the concern, and I certainly think there are plenty of sources available to show he is notably controversial.---Debollweevil (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I for one, will agree, he's known for controversy. The only reason I visit this article is to check for facts and updates about the next stupid thing he does. Last time I was here was the South Park episode, before that his last stage outburst, before that Hurricane Katrina... Today, Taylor Swift. That's at least 4 times controversy has sent me to the Kanye article, and a big fat zero times that any of his music or "talent" has. Frankly, I was upset to find the "controversy" section removed from this article. When his controversies are what one wishes to read about, integrating them into the regular biography just makes the article harder to navigate.67.173.38.15 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a big Controversy section. Miley Cyrus has a ton of controversy listed, I don't see why Kanye shouldn't have one. Not only is he known for being a musical producer but a big piece of shit. Someone963852 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I too only visit this "" artist ""'s page only to find out about the self-absorbed arrogant blunders and temper tantrum he has committed or to find out what other people loathe his ear raping musical artifacts, ( seriously what he did to that daft punk song is heinous, and he even rhyme a word with THE SAME WORD, how insanely lame is that ) I just want a confirmation that I am not the only one to think he is such an untalented hack and plain bad person fully deserving all the vitriolic hate he gets ! wikipedia at domn dot net 207.253.74.149 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the number of hits for the article this month... Notice it jumps 666% from the 13th to the 14th. ---Debollweevil (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

nothing wrong with structuring an article so that people can find the information they're looking for. Not good to "hide" controversy in very lengthy sections with generic headings. --345Kai (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"We can only hope that soon he will make his last album and then fade gracefully into the shadows only to emerge later with a horrible reality tv show on VH1" - LOL, loving a lot whoever wrote this!

Well, IP, it was just vandalism (obviously) and has since been removed. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanye's 2009 VMA Blog Entry

The apology Kanye West made has since been removed from his blog. However, it was preserved here. MatthewKeys (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A citation has now been added, thanks. Woody (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Shame they didn't keep the shitty spelling and CRUISE CONTROL. 86.144.148.55 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's remarkably unusual that an artist as controversial as Kanye has no controversy page. Reading this Wikipedia entry looks like the Internet equivalent of a Celebrity headshot. Lots of good stuff, Philanthropy and history that touches on Kanye's hardships and timeline, but not one lick on assorted outbursts, controversy, arrogance or disrespect which precedes the artist. Lack of a controversy page is an afront to Wikipedia. It seems as if the wiki-mods/administrators charged with keeping this page have perverted Wikipedia's high minded goals by failing to make mention of anything which could be construed as negative. That's unfortunate because it cheapens Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.168.231.245 (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; as I was discussing above, a section for the heaps of controversy he has spawned is certainly in order. I would personally Be Bold and do it myself, but I can't now, since the article is completely locked... ---Debollweevil (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There definately used to be a controversy page here, I looked it over back when South Park did the Kanye episode... truth told, I'm guessing the Taylor Swift incident just brought the Pro-Kanye fans here to defend him, and it probably got fudged out of existance sometime in the last 48 hours. I'm too lazy to dig through the history to verify that though. In any event though, I'll agree that the controversy section either needs to be restored, or given its own page. 67.173.38.15 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that the Taylor Swift incident brought you and I as well... I'm sure a heap of others also. There's a way to see how many hits this page has; if someone could point out how to do this, I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, concerning notability, here is the first thing Google gives me when I enter "Taylor Swift Kanye West", and it starts out with the line, "No one should really be shocked that Kanye West ruined Taylor Swift's MTV VMA victory"... So he is notorious for this, undeniably. ---Debollweevil (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%. Someone should also point out that what he did with Taylor Swift can be seen as a racist action especially after his comment about how Goerge W. Bush doesn't like black people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.83.49 (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And for doing the exact same thing at the 06' Europe music awards. It was a white group that won the award.

More on VMA

Hello, I know that this article is about Kanye West, but there is some information on the Taylor Swift page that I think would improve this article. I'm quoting it below so that it can be added once protection is removed, if you think this is good to add:

When Beyonce later won the award for Best Video of the Year for "Single Ladies," she called Swift up on stage so that she could finish her acceptance speech.

Maybe in a shorter version. LovesMacs (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I'm thinking this is a one time thing? Nooot. Belonging to the NAACP I believe I can say this; You can take a punk from the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto from the punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobofnaples (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some mention should also be made for Mr. West's emotional apology on Jay Leno's show on 14 September 2009.75.84.93.124 (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

VMA's

When Taylor Swift won for best female video at the 2009 VMA's he got up on stage and took the spotlight away from Taylor by saying Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time, and pretty much that Beyonce deserved that award more than Taylor Swift. For the rest of the show he was booed when his name was brought up, and twitter, myspace, and facebook were flooded with updates about his obnoxious display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.2.126 (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a little blurb about what recently happened at the VMAs. I am having a bit of trouble with the formatting. If anyone can help me fix it I would appreciate it. I have a citation going to TMZ's article, but I royally screwed up the citation for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Areusche (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

== Kanye West bkgo

He recently apologized to Taylor Swift and her mom according to Kanye's blog MatthewKeys (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Now cited thanks, Woody (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology means nothing if he keeps doing his stuff. Media executives with any level of sanity would ban him from public award shows and media appearances in general. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

98.88.73.158 (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)If you would call any statement he made an "apology" then you might as well write in Donald Duck as a candidate for President of the United States. According to the same news source, he removed the blog posting where he apologized. That should be added since it shows how serious he was with his "apology". "West's blog entry has since been removed from his website."--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a source cloe to Taylor Swift's mother has said that Kenya West made no such apology to the mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.128.193 (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been said that this was nothing more then a publicity stunt since both Kayne and Taylor share the same agent. Also shortly after this it does appear as if Taylor has alot going on and well putting 2 and 2 together this does have publicity stunt written all over it. These commercial events would never ever permit anything to happen that was unscripted, too much is on the line. Everything that has happened at these award shows are always planned ahead of time.

I wasn't prepared to edit the article since im not sure how credible things are but this link somewhat confirms things. Others may have more information on this.Woods01 (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This was not a publicity stunt or staged. Plenty of unplanned things have happened at the MTV Videos Music Awards when live. Furthermore, this is not the first time West has acted out with an offensive or controversial (or both types combined) outburst. I already explained my feelings below in the "staged controversy?" section about this being a supposed publicity stunt. If it was a publicity stunt, it was all on West alone and clearly backfired on him. No, not all publicity is good publicity. This is not something I feel that people could have predicted would be as big a controversy as it became. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposing separate section for media interruptions

The record of Kanye West's past incidents needs to put in a separate section on his page. The section could be called "Interruptions during Media performances" or something like that to make it prominent. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gretchen Wilson

Why isn't Kanye's comments about Gretchen at the 2004 Grammy's listed here? this isn't a first for Kanye... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.215.230 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, he is a polarising figure and it doesn't seem to be reflected in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.154.207 (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• A timeline of rants/outburst from 2007 including the 04 Grammys. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1569536/20070912/west_kanye.jhtml Mortal (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly bad writing

(Disclaimer, I didn't know who Kanye West was and came here to find out. So I'm not a hater nor a lover of Kanye, actually pretty indifferent).

That said, this article reads like a fan magazine (Kanye is making his "very first animated television appearance" this fall? Gosh!)

Also, what about all the dated references? "West and Crowley are expected to be arraigned on April 14, 2009". "In September 2005, West announced that he would release his Pastelle Clothing line in spring 2006.... The current status of this project is unknown."

Seriously, fawning crap like this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe the editorial staff can condense this down to what makes this person important (without the fluff it should make for a very short article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewartjk1 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not his first animated appearance as he was already on South Park! Faethon Ghost (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't his voice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tour With Gaga

The Fame Kills Starring: Lady Gaga dn Kanye West Tour —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdhnvegas (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

President Obama called Kanye West a "jackass."

Source: Politico Grundle2600 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) RS. Nevard (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

Cant we club all his controversies under one heading? Just like it is for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#Incidents.2C_criminal_troubles?

--Jayanthv86 (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Bump yalbik (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Scroll up on the talk page, this is discussed pretty extensively in the past few days. (See 2009 VMA section and Controversy Page section)---Debollweevil (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hello, there is no single tab which clubs all his controversies under one. I am not talking about one specific controversy, i.e 2009 VMA awards. I am talking about putting all his controversies, his bush comment, previous VMA controversies all under one. Did you guys even read the example I have given?

--69.143.235.193 (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I AGREE with previous comment. i was surprised there wasn't such a section. Please add 64.113.101.29 (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read my comment above, there is a ton of discussion on this going on a little higher up on the talk page, and that's why this is more or less getting neglected. If you look at the topic under this one, I'm discussing adding this to the locked article with an admin right now. I'll add this to the consensus... ---Debollweevil (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologized now

{{Editprotected}} FWIW, he's officially apologized to Taylor Swift personally now, after her appearance on The View. Ref: Taylor Swift: Kanye West Called, 'Was Very Sincere in His Apology'. For those allowed to edit this article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• No one is able to edit it, except administrators. I'll go ahead and add {{Editprotected}} for you. ESpublic013 (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin here. Can you be specific about the change you want to make? Is it simply "West apologized to Swift at location X at time Y.[ref]"?  Skomorokh  23:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How long is this article going to stay protected for? If you look at the recent discussion on this talk page, there are some meaningful changes that are being discussed, and I am afraid that people are going to lose interest if the article remains locked every time they check back... ---Debollweevil (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please work out a consensus as to what you want done to the article, and then place an editprotected tag up. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus that is being agreed on with this article is that it is difficult to navigate to the controversies started by this man, and while there is a general dislike for making a section just for controversies (note: multiple ones) on Wikipedia, the argument is that this man is actually very notable for the controversies he has started, as I and others have given plenty of evidence towards in above sections. The exact edit to be done, therefore, is somewhat complex, and hard to direct a third party to do. If you'd like to take a shot at it, by all means, many people are looking for this to happen! (Just look at all the comments from the past few days!)... Otherwise, as I said earlier, people are going to get frustrated and lose interest in the article due to it being completely locked and not letting any input on the subject other than on the talk page. ---Debollweevil (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to point you in the direction of all the discussion of this, check out here, here, here, here, and here, just for the main discussions... ---Debollweevil (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} ---Debollweevil (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I have reviewed the discussions. In order to overturn a firm guideline on keeping an article neutral, especially in the case of a biography of a living person, there needs to be strong and well-reasoned consensus that it is an exceptional case, which I am not seeing here by a long shot. In future, please request edits to protected pages when there is a complete and specific description of a change that has clear consensus. You can request unprotection of the article from the protecting administrator or at WP:RFPP. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Not seeing here by a long shot"?? Did you look at this talk page? Can we perhaps have another admin with more time to look into this? How much more clear can the consensus be than this? I thought I was going overboard with all those links, and it wasn't enough??? ---Debollweevil (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want to add that I stated that this change would be hard to direct someone else to do, so when such a problem arises, it really can't be dealt with differently "in the future"... ---Debollweevil (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama's comments

Why is there no mention of Obama's response to this?[2] Richard (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Obama's comment is particularly relevant. Obama is a famous politician. But as far as music and other people go, he's as good a judge as anyone else. He's not a music critic or a psychologist. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Famous Politician" LOL! Obama is probably the most famous living man in the world right now. If he's not the first, he's definitely in the top 5. (but just so we are clear, I don't like him) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.192.64 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's as relevant as any other celebrity's comments which are fair game. I'll add it if nobody else does when this is unprotected. Brianrusso (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

He's not a "famous politician," he is the president of the United States. There are few people who are more notable than that. Maybe if the Pope commented on this. Xizer (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To everyone above, we do not have it in Taylor Swift's article...but we do point to it from there to the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards article. As for this article, the information about West's outburst at the Video Music Awards should resemble Swift's article...minus Swift saying what was going through her head when the outburst happened (unless, of course, consensus is to include that as well). Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should probably be included in both articles. It shows the extent of incident and has become part of it. There is no hurry here, and I don't want to include too much recency bias, but I think it will become and remain clear that this is an essential element of the incident. Savidan 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to mention this drama at all, it's at least worth a mention that the POTUS commented on it, and this was reported on the BBC. --92.12.10.108 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, Savidan. You have me considering just a little that it should also be in Swift's article. If I add it there, though, it will simply be a quick mention that West was also criticized by President Barack Obama in an off the record comment...since I feel that the simple "jackass" remark requries expansion (like the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards article) and since Swift's article points to the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards article for readers to get the details on this matter anyway. Even a small mention of this remark should mention that it was "off the record" as to not give the impression that Obama spoke out publicly or rather "officially" about this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In Pop Culture Section

Shouldn't there be an "In Pop Culture" section that discusses references to Kanye West in other pop culture areas?

This would at least include the South Park episode and his response.MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Return to semi protection

The full protection is due to expire in a few hours but I will drop the protection back to semi now so that established editors can work on it per the above indicated consensus. Please note that this will only last IF there is not a resumption of the torrent of slanderous, racist abuse being added to the article by long time/autoconfirmed editors. Also no one wants to see an edit war develop over what is likely to be a controversial section. Care must be taken to adhere to WP:UNDUE and disputes should be worked out here.

Once again, as ever BLP violations and attacks can and will not be tolerated, the rights of the article subject not to be defamed will and must always trump the rights of editors to edit this page, and re-protection will be the likely outcome. Mfield (Oi!) 22:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a version regarding information about West's verbal outburst at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards that I feel just about satisfies everyone. But it seems that we do need a Controversies section in this article. Heck, Miley Cyrus has one (though some of her less notable controversies have been removed). With West, for example, the Awards and controversy section, which documents 2006, is basically a controversy section anwyay (it is mostly about controversies). This is why its lead cannot specify, because it involves a few of his controversies. I specified the title of the section containing his 2009 MTV Video Music Awards outburst, but it makes it seem even more as though all his controversies should be in one section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Creating the controversy section

Alright, first things first, since this is going to be quite a project... I'm going to list all the controversies that are scattered through the article here, and we can take it from there. There are a lot, so I need some help with what exactly should go in the section, what should stay where it is, etc. Also, as pointed out above, the article is somewhat structured around the controversy at points, and some of the sections are going to be renamed, combined, or something. I want opinions on this before I make any drastic changes. ---Debollweevil (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

===Public Controversies===

Kanye West has had a number of controversies in his career. On September 2, 2005, during a benefit concert for Hurricane Katrina relief on NBC, A Concert for Hurricane Relief, West was a featured speaker. Controversy arose when West was presenting, as he deviated from the prepared script. The actor Mike Myers, with whom West was paired to present, spoke next and continued to read the script. Once it was West's turn to speak again, he said "George Bush doesn't care about black people." At this point, telethon producer Rick Kaplan cut off the microphone and then cut away to Chris Tucker, who was unaware of the cut for a few seconds. Still, West's comment reached much of the United States..

In January 2006, West again sparked controversy when he appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone in the image of Jesus wearing a crown of thorns.

Later in 2006, Kanye had his first of a number of incidents involving music award events. After the 2006 Grammy nominations were released, West said he would "really have a problem" if he didn't win the Album of the Year, saying "I don't care what I do, I don't care how much I stunt — you can never take away from the amount of work I put into it. I don't want to hear all of that politically correct stuff." On November 2, 2006, when his "Touch the Sky" failed to win Best Video at the MTV Europe Music Awards, West went onto the stage as the award was being presented to Justice and Simian for "We Are Your Friends" and argued that he should have won the award instead. Hundreds of news outlets worldwide criticized the outburst. On November 7, 2006, West apologized for this outburst publicly during his performance as support act for U2 for their Vertigo concert in Brisbane, Australia. He later spoofed the incident in the season premiere of Saturday Night Live's 33rd season. In September 2007, West suggested that his race had to do with his being overlooked for opening the MTV Video Music Awards in favor of Britney Spears; he claimed, "Maybe my skin’s not right." The date was September 9, 2007, and West Was performing at the event. On that night, he lost all 5 awards that he was nominated for, including Best Male Artist and Video of the Year. After the show, he was visibly upset that he had lost at the VMAs 2 years in a row, stating that he would not come back to MTV ever again. He also appeared on several radio stations saying that when he made the song "Stronger" that it was his dream to open the VMAs with it. He has also stated that Britney Spears hasn't had a hit in a long period of time and that MTV exploited her for ratings.

In December 2006, Robert "Evel" Knievel sued West for trademark infringement in West's video for "Touch the Sky." Knievel took issue with a "sexually-charged video" in which West takes on the persona of "Evel Kanyevel" and attempts flying a rocket over a canyon. The suit filed in federal court claims infringement on his trademarked name and likeness. Knievel also claims the "vulgar and offensive" images depicted in the video damage his reputation. The suit seeks damages and to stop distribution of the video. Knievel eventually settled the suit in November 2007, just days before his death.

On September 13, 2009, during the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards (VMA's), while Taylor Swift was accepting her award for Best Female Video, West went on stage and grabbed the microphone to proclaim that Beyoncé's video for "Single Ladies", nominated for the same award, was "one of the best videos of all time". This caused a negative reaction from the crowd; West handed the microphone back to a stunned and reportedly upset Swift, who did not finish her acceptance speech. He was subsequently removed from the remainder of the show for his actions. When Beyoncé later won the award for Best Video of the Year for "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", she called Swift up on stage so that she could finish her acceptance speech. West was criticized by various celebrities for the outburst, and by President Obama, who pronounced West a "jackass" in an "off the record" comment. West posted two apologies on his blog, one the night of the incident and the other the same day he appeared on The Jay Leno Show, on September 14, 2009, where he apologized again. After Swift appeared on The View two days after the outburst, partly to discuss the matter, West called her to apologize personally. Swift said she accepted his apology.

^^^^^^^

I just added a reference to Jimmy Carter's criticism of West's actions at the 2009 VMA ceremony, after the reference to Obama's criticism. Hard to know if this is sufficiently important to keep. Let's see what others think. But being criticized by one current president and one former president seems noteworthy to me. How many pop stars have received such attention?? Omccreary (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards article, since it was removed from this article by Travisharlem (as shown below in the section I started about his edits to this article). Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullet-style section: I'm thinking of actually taking this list as it is here, with the bullets, and using that as the bulk of the controversy section, then removing the sections from their respective current places in the article. (Some minor editing to this list as it is now is needed, obviously)... This way, we keep the good information, sources, and wording from the article, while reformatting the article to suit the controversy section. Thoughts on this? ---Debollweevil (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I say go ahead and create the controversy section. It is needed in this case. But I suggest naming it "Controversies"...and I would rather it not be in bullet-point style. It may seem as leaning "too much" toward WP:UNDUE to structure all the controversies as subsections, but this is a controversial figure; he is known as much for his controversial actions as he is for his music. Perhaps that is the better route to go in this case? If we can do it with the Miley Cyrus article, we can surely do it with this one. Sure, Kanye West has more controversies than Cyrus to list, but he is the far more controversial figure out of the two. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If bullets are used, I can guarantee it will be at GAR quick smart. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so out with the bullets. I thought it might look too long like that! (though it would be easy to see all the different cases)... So, I'm now condensing it into a few paragraphs, but anyone should feel free to make edits to the text above in the meantime, as it will eventually be the "Controversy" section.

As an aside, what is GAR? ---Debollweevil (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've got the section created, and all the references throughout the article to those controversies removed! My eyes are killing me, so I'm going to sleep now, but if I could get help with some of the small things like adding some wiki links that got unintentionally removed, and whatever else might jump out at you, it would be wonderful of you! I hope that it is even more beautiful than it is now when I wake up! ;) Also, note that I left the arrests in the section they were already, since they aren't exactly controversy. I think that was the right course of action, but let other opinions be known. ---Debollweevil (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I say title the section Controversies, since he has had more than one. I am not sure that anything should be cut out, certainly not from his recent controversy (since it is as small as it can be while covering all the relevant detail). I would rather his Controversies section be split into subsections. Also, be careful with capitalization of headings, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, headings, and sections.

GAR is Good article reassessment. This article is listed as a Good Article. It could be dropped from that list with bad editing. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's the title now (you can see it in the actual article now)... I didn't really end up cutting out anything either, just the redundant pieces from where the controversies were previously. Do you see anything that needs to be addressed, now that it's up? ---Debollweevil (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(We were replying at the same time with this one.) Okay, I just saw your change. It looks good. And since some of it has been condensed, it does not need subsection headings. I am not yet sure what you cut out, but it was hopefully nothing too relevant. At least you kept the recent controversy information the same; it is only a paragraph anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look at the above more closely, I see that it would not have needed subsections either way. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! I probably wouldn't have even started had I not had a little direction... ---Debollweevil (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just help me keep a lookout for Travisharlem removing relevant material from this article. He has a thing about keeping out as much negative information about West as possible. Well, the information I included in the paragraph about West's outburst at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards is very relevant. Removing important stuff...such as the crowd reacting negatively to the outburst, West handing the microphone back to a stunned and reportedly upset Swift (which also mentions she did not get to finish her acceptance speech; though it is clear from other information)), and West's apologies other than the telephone call...is not constructive. The information about the apologies is not even negative. Yes, it shows how much West wanted forgiveness, but so. And, yes, we point to the bigger article for more detail. But this article should mention some of that detail as well. And including the "jackass" mention by Obama, instead of leaving it at West having been criticized by Obama? Well, judging by the edits after Travisharlem removed the "jackass" mention the first time, WP:Consensus is apparently for keeping it. I left it out when I constructed that paragraph, but it was added in by another editor...and, as I said, is apparently favored. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

While work is happening, why dont some editors take the article to FA? Aaroncrick (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that this article is not too ready for FA (Featured Article Status), though. Most of the work would go on there in the review, where it still may not make FA status. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh great. We're rolling back to the bad old days of endless "controversy" sections that pander to those too lazy to read through the article and that violate WP:NPOV! If West should be known as much for his controversial personal life as much as his music career, then that's more of an argument that information about his controversies should be included within main sections rather than forked out in a section to incite dislike for him. (And I wonder why there's no section about his personal life that discusses his brief relationships with Amber Rose and that other woman whose name I don't know. The personal life section can host some information about West's bad behavior like the September 2008 airport paparazzi incident.) Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See these pages for why controversy sections are not really neutral:

• Wikipedia:Criticism sections
• Wikipedia:Criticism sections and articles
• Wikipedia:Controversial articles

Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't see it as violating WP:NPOV in this case (for the reasons I stated above). In some WP:BIO cases, controversy sections seem to make more sense than having the information split. I feel that this is one of those cases. West already had a section titled Awards and controversy in this article, which was essentially a controversies section, before we put all his controversies together. But I do not feel strongly about it one way or the other. I feel more strongly about wrong formatting and bias in Wikipedia articles, as I noted below about another editor's edits. Flyer22 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm just noting that you say "see these pages", then link to pages mainly about "criticism" (except the middle one, which addresses both and says it can be "a fundamentally useful" and "warranted in the article"). This section does not involve any criticism, just the stating of facts that are related, in a section that ties them together. As Flyer pointed out, before we created this section, there was already a section for his life in 2006 that was just controversy, with the rest scattered through the article. If you read the discussion that went on the talk page the few days following the 2009 VMA incident, the consensus is that people want to be able to navigate the page easier, and that is what we did. For these reasons, and also because your argument doesn't seemingly apply to this article, I'm removing the tag, as it has no NPOV issues that I can find. If there are, please post them here and we can deal with them, rather than putting that eyesore there that doesn't allow anyone to actually see where in the article this non-neutral information is.

Note that your links even say that criticism, which is a step further than we have gone, is permissible in certain situations. In addition, I seem to remember some rule like "use the occasional exception", if you still believe your criticism of the controversy section stands... This decision is well-founded and well-backed.---Debollweevil (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thing I want to throw out, and this is more of a logic-type thing... There is a section for Kanye's "Philanthropy" and "Mother's Death", but neither of these can hold a candle to the notability that he has for 1) his music, and 2) the controversies he has started. As I was referring to earlier, please read all the frustrated comments on this talk page in the days following the VMA awards from people that wanted to read about, yes, the multiple controversies this man has spawned, and how hard to navigate the article was when it went back and forth between music and controversy events. So, if there is an argument that can allow for controversy scattered throughout the article to be neutral, but making it to be well organized would turn it non-neutral, by all means, explain how. ---Debollweevil (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that I'll accept the controversy section how it is right now. I don't deny that West does all sorts of controversial things during awards shows. Yes, previously there was a section within his music career section, "Awards and controversy (2006)". What's more neutral, putting West as most controversial in 2006 (Rolling Stone cover photo, outburst at EMAs, lawsuit by Evel Knievel) or as a controversial person in general?

But then the section creates an awkward feel when reading the music career section. In the 2007 section it says "see controversies section" for more information about his 2007 VMA comments. There's no mention of being nominated for VMAs in the section about his latest 808 album. That's probably an example of "hierarchy of fact" that is pointed out at WP:STRUCTURE.Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're referring to, and I certainly hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm supporting an unbalanced article. I have no objections to such things being added to the article; I think the most logical place would be in the 808 album section... ---Debollweevil (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I deal a lot with BIO articles and I have to say, I literally hate "controversy" sections as much as I do "Personal life" sections. In this case, the article already has a "Life and career section" which should include both his personal life and notable controversies. Since the latter section are already grouped into specific date ranges, it shouldn't take much to cut and paste the into in the relevant section of the "Life and career". If consensus is to keep everything separate, then the "life and career" section needed to be broken up as well, simply for structural purposes. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Bookkeeperoftheoccult is great with WP:BIOS, I must say. And I know that you hate controversy sections, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. But remember what you stated about the Miley Cyrus Controversies section? One of the reasons you felt that it was not needed is because her controversies are not necessarily tied to her notability. But what about in this case? As I stated above, West is as much known for his controversies as he is for his music. His controversies are a big part of his notability. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I kinda don't care with this particular article one way or the other. My point was that if consensus is to keep everything separate, then do so for the entire article. In other words "Music career" section 2 headers followed by albums, section 3 header for each. Then Person Life, which would include "early life" and "controversies". I'm just asking it either be straight chronological Bio, or be broken up in a more uniform manor. Right now its a mix of both structures. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I get what you mean. At one point when looking at the overall structure of this article and seeing that some things having mainly to do with how he has lived his life (personal life matters, for example) are not in his Life and career section, I thought, "This is a bit off." It is almost like when I see a section titled Biography and yet other sections separate from it and I think "all of this is this person's biography" and then proceed to format the headings better (which usually includes removing the Biography title). Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is one controversy that has been missed by the above suggestion, but relates to one already listed. My personal suggestion is to add an edit to this part of the section, so that it reads thusly...

In January 2006, West again sparked controversy when he appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone in the image of Jesus wearing a crown of thorns. Later, in February of that same year, West is reported to have claimed that he should be a character in the Bible.

Lord Barrius (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

staged controversy?

This is kind of interesting. It says Taylor and Knowles have the same agent and insinuates that the VMA interruption was a publicity stunt. It compares the incident to the earlier supposed quarrel between West and 50 Cent. Believe me that I know absolutely nothing about this stuff and had no idea who these people were before the ruckus broke out, but a little bit of web searching corroborates the 50 Cent story, probably enough to mention in the article. 67.122.211.205 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that West's outburst was staged. To say that it was staged is to say that it is a well-kept secret between West and Taylor Swift, even between Beyoncé Knowles in the speculation you cite, and that Swift is an excellent actress (we all saw her reaction to the outburst that night). Furthermore, this is not the first time West has acted out in this type of manner, and none of those other times were staged either. I am surprised you have never heard of him from his infamous declaration that (former) President Bush "does not care about Black people" during a well-televised show in respect of Hurricane Katrina victims. Why is it so difficult for some people to believe that his verbal outburst in regards to Taylor Swift was real? The outrage to it was certainly real. I really hate conspiracy theories. West would have been better off admitting that it was staged, if it had been, than getting the backlash he received; that way, he would get even more publicity for having duped us. The thing is...it would also hurt the reputations of Swift and Knowles. And as for 50 Cent, 50 Cent has had a real dislike for West, even if their public feud was mostly fake; he even spoke out about this particular stunt against West, saying he would give him a black eye if he had done that to him while on stage. Basically...either way, we would need a reliable source with proof that West's outburst at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards was staged before adding it in. Adding in trivial detail about how some people believe it was staged is not even a little bit important, from a reliable source or not. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, see WP:TALK. Unless it's directly related to the article itself, this is inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Genius?

Why is there no mention of the fact that he is a motherfucking genius, a lyrical wordsmith, the voice of a generation? Einstein's article mentions that he is a genius. Shouldn't articles pertaining to geniuses like Kanye include that in the opening paragraph.Plottoday87 (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Einstein is literally a genius with a genius IQ. Kanye is an unintelligent and uneducated boar that thinks the Nobel Prize in Physics is called the "Nobel Peace Prize for Physics". On top of that, his music is juvenile and his lyrics are awful. He's about as much of a genius as the lump of manure that I just deposited in my toilet.

Not to mention the fact that Einstein wasn't a gay fish.

I laughed at this... It's just a joke. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Travisharlem's edits

I mentioned Travisharlem's biased edits above; these edits are meant to keep as much negative information about West out of this article as possible. Removing sourced material that is the consensus version is most definitely vandalism; he cannot remove this stuff simply because he does not like it. He is removing very relevant information. The crowd reacted negatively is all well-sourced and very relevant. The fact that West gave the microphone back to a stunned and reportedly upset Swift is well-sourced and very relevant (we know she was upset!). All of West's apologies are well-sourced and very relevant (they are not even negative, no matter showing just how "desperate" he was for forgiveness). As for the "jackass" mention by Barack Obama, most editors are for that mention; they will keep adding it back. I did not include it when I constructed the paragraph about West's 2009 MTV Video Music Awards outburst (though I did include that West was criticized by Obama), but it was added in. And it was added back by someone else after Travisharlem first removed it. Additionally, we do not point to a main article in the way that he did in the middle of a section; that is not proper Wikipedia formatting. He basically called me a vandal simply for reinstating the consensus (and, in this case, better) version of an article. If he was talking about my removal of the YouTube source. Well, I was correct in that removal. YouTube is typically considered unreliable by Wikipedia. Here is a discussion about this: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 36#Youtube as a source. There have been plenty of debates/discussions about its use here at Wikipedia. Either way, Travisharlem basically calling me a vandal was completely uncalled for, and I suggest he see WP:CIVIL.

To document in text what WP:Consensus is on this matter, I brought it here for discussion. Do we go with my version...or Travisharlem's version? Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I ask that some of the people watching/editing this article comment on this. I am asking for opinions, so that consensus can be documented in text. That is all. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the VMA controversy should definitely be included; the little link to the main article can direct people if they want to read more, but like just about every other case I see of the main article function being used, and like it makes sense to do, the part regarding the topic should be explained as well as giving the main article link.

The putting of "arrests" in the title of that section I thought was a good idea too, but it certainly can be debated either way. That section was, even before I touched it, mainly about two arrest incidents. ---Debollweevil (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added back the information about West's other apologies; in addition to making it clear how long it took him to personally apologize to Swift, we should not make it seem as though the call was his first apology. Yet Travisharlem kept, and perhaps will keep, editing it this way. The same goes for making it clear that it was an "off the record" comment by Obama, so that it is clear that it was not a public or rather official criticism. And yet Travisharlem was the one who removed that and kept reverting back to that removal, which I don't get (unless he sees it as worse that Obama "sneakily" called West a jackass). Another editor added that back -- that it was "off the record" -- again showing consensus for my version. I just a few moments ago tweaked that part back to my exact version, so that "off the record" is linked and that line makes more sense (such as not calling Obama a celebrity). I left out the mention of how the crowd reacted negatively to West's outburst and Swift reportedly being upset about West's interruption, not as a compromise for Travisharlem and his biased edits but rather because it would have been a full revert on my part and I am at WP:3RR on that matter right now. But WP:3RR should not count in the case of proper formatting, which I reinstated again...including removing YouTube as a source (other editors should have done that; I made clear above that this is not the case where its use is allowed; for the record, it was used as a source for West's declaration that then-President Bush "does not care about Black people").

Travisharlem is a rather new editor here at Wikipedia with very little edits and who obviously is not familiar with a lot of how Wikipedia works, such as proper formatting. He has not talked on any talk pages, only through edit summaries. If he does not participate on talk pages to discuss his edits when someone disagrees with them, then are we supposed to just let his edits stand? I say no, and I will not sit here and let him run the show. I will likely rather stop editing this article for some time, since I am the main one countering his edits (other than other people cleaning up his mess). This is not simply between Travisharlem and I. Other editors should recognize the wrong in his editing style and appropriately revert him when needed. I was here to make construction of the information about the West/Swift matter better, and I did. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, he should be discussing edits here on the talk page... especially when the logic he is using with his edits is not obvious (removing "off the record" from Obama's comments, for example). I will try to keep an eye on this, though like you, I am trying to be a little less visible to reflect the community's opinions on improving the section. I say good job and thanks to you and the editors that have improved on it thus far! ---Debollweevil (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to discuss subjects brought up on the talk page, and your work on this article, Debollweevil. I thank you for improving this article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Full protection again?

I am not seeing it as necessary to have this article completely locked down again at this time...unless enough people are not watching this article to revert the vandalism quick enough. There was a little recent vandalism, but we took care of it (not super quickly, but not super late either). The vandalism has not stopped? Well, of course we are not going to be able to stop vandalism completely in regards to this article and a lot of other Wikipedia articles...not so long as others beside administrators can edit. But the vandalism while on semi-protection was not so out of hand that we needed this article fully protected again, this time until October 16, 2009. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On a good note, this provides me with a good break from editing this article (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with whatever the consensus is.--Applegigs (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... count how many times the article was vandalized and you get... Two times in three days! Really, Tedder? That calls for full protection? ---Debollweevil (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please fix link to disambiguation page

{{Editprotected}} The link for Amber Rose should be directed to Amber Rose (model). Thanks. Marchije•^speak/_peek 11:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding {{Editprotected}} for you. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)