Talk:Lil Nas X

Islamophobic tweets

Should a section be included about his former Twitter account and his controversial tweets?--Osh33m (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Only what’s covered in WP:Reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Career subsections

Why is the Career section separated by songs? Unusual, needs a clean up. Most of that information belongs to the song's (OTR) article, not here. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This was a timeline way of organizing as well as talking about his work. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No other article in WP has that "order". The whole subsection "Public recognition" is based on the OTR song's success and awards. The article needs a clean up. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Well he publicly stated that his name was not a tribute to nas the rapper he said that he already had a internet personality named nas and made a joke that every new rapper always put "lil" in front of their name and he added the x for show. please change. 2601:346:4300:C760:5D30:5842:E688:A70D (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – robertsky (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

Update page photo to a better quality image. EducatingJeremiah (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide another image with no copyright issues. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversies section

Should we even be covering controversies over a bunch of tweets that nobody is certain that he had anything to do with at all? If so, are we doing enough to make it clear that this is merely an accusation? The Uproxx source contains an explicit denial that he was associated with the tweets yet our coverage does not seem to reflect that at all, nevermind adequately. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@DanielRigal Hello, you're right, that shouldn't have been included and it violates both WP:BLP and WP:CRITS, especially since it's not confirmed the account even belonged to him. I've reverted that edit. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The Satan shoes Controversy

An edit of Lil's infamous Nike shoe project was reverted to it's original state for embedded links. While wikipedia policies explicitly states that: 1.some external links are welcome; 2. and that no page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense.

It's important that user bBB23 explain here of the circumstances that led to the deletion of this rather controversial topic, with enough sources and citations. Rawwbots (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rawwbots @Bbb23 There's some good content in your addition, but to me the main problem is that external links were used instead of citations. External links should almost always be avoided. You just need to add citations at the end of each paragraph to back up their content, and this will be sorted. Looking at it, it's actually already covered under "2020–present: Montero", so you can take a look at that and if there's essential information you think is missing, you can re-add it there.

The addition seems to be one-sided as well - you need to state the defendant's side of it, not just Nike's. As well as that, sections titled "Controversy" should almost never be used in an article unless that's literally all the content that exists about someone or something; instead, this content should instead be integrated somewhere else in the article. The 3rd paragraph, which is just two long quotes from Nike, needs to either be removed or summarised as well.

You can see your addition here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lil_Nas_X&oldid=1024140365 , which you can use for reference. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Uses x, that all sounds very reasonable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rawwbots I've undone your edit. As I said above, please integrate the important information (not every detail that's out there, as per WP:UNDUE) into where the information already is, at the location I stated. It's hardly a life changing event, so it doesn't need it's own section, and no one needs to know every single detail (e.g. that 666 shoes were made but only 665 were sold, ...). Also please take greater care with formatting. Take a look at the table of contents and your addition here, and compare it to the rest of the article and you'll see what I mean. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Again, the number of units has its rhetoric significance to the theme. In my opinion, this incident is one of serious misconduct, lacking empathy of any kind, and given his social stature, deserving a section of it's own. Wikipedia witg its transparency, ought to send this message loud and clear that if any want a polished profile , they need to live up to their social stature. Rawwbots (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)