Talk:Tunnel Vision (Kodak Black song)

Clarification needed

In the background section, it states:

"Kodak Black was released from a jail in South Carolina on bail following a rape case which he was accused of, a couple weeks prior to the recording of the song, which Kodak Black teased on his Instagram account when he was in the studio with Metro Boomin in Miami, Florida and released a snippet of the song, which racked up millions of plays before it's official release two months before."

This doesn't make sense. Should it instead say "before its official release two months later"? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversial info

@Magnolia677: made this edit regarding the "controversial" info included in the article, and the guidelines they provided does not explicitly state that the word "controversy" isn't allowed, just preferred not to be used, however this specific lyric is controversial, as stated in the sources itself, regardless of what the guidelines say, it makes more sense to use the word "controversy" than "content", since such changes like this didn't really matter, as other music related articles labeled certain incidents as a "controversy". In addition, I think the word "controversy" looks more appealing to the article rather than "content". Remember that this is only music, and that this event is only a minor incident, and not politically or racially motivated in any way. Seeking the input of fellow rap music editors, @Cornerstonepicker:@BlaccCrab:@JustDoItFettyg:@32zel:@Eurofan88:@TheAmazingPeanuts:@Kakashi123456789:@KEV2179413:@Maintaining: and fellow editors @Ss112: and @Atlantic306:, thanks. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources itself state that the specified lyrics are controversial.32zel (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just more specifically, WP:CRIT says: "Avoid mixed bag section titles like "Controversies" without it being clear in the section title (or in the titles of the subsections of such section) what these controversies are about." No text in the section actually said the lyrics were controversial, and Genius.com merely states "controversial" in its heading, with the implication that because he faced rape charges and said that word, it's controversial, without elaborating. I've renamed the heading, but perhaps there's a better way of wording it than "removal of lyrics". I agree with Magnolia's choice to remove "Controversy" from the heading though, as why it's controversial is not elaborated on (controversy from whom? Did anybody object to the original lyrics, or did Kodak merely self-censor?). Ss112 04:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, the lyric "they just wanna see you in the penitentiary", which is included in that section, was not removed from the official version of the song. Perhaps a more general section title could be created. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: That article with those lyrics doesn't talk about his new alleged incident, they only added it because the accuser could be lying and just either want them locked away or for a big payday if they win. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Changed the heading to "lyrical references" because each sentence in that section cites references in the lyrics to Kodak's legal troubles. "Lyrics" implies the section discusses the lyrical content in general, and the section does not do this, so it is misleading otherwise. Thank you. Ss112 18:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw, pretty sure Genius' articles are made by users. It needs a better source. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: No they aren't, they have their own editors, I don't know where you got that from, its only user contributed when annotations are added to songs, with the exception of verified profiles, which is usually someone that contributed to the song. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bloomdoom2: Just checked. They have like one editor: Chris Mench. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)