Talk:Nicki Minaj/Archive 7

Discussion
(posting this again as a non-rfc) I'm proposing the following changes for the article:
 * 1) In the opening sentence, it is claimed that "She is known for her versatility as an artist, her animated flow and lyricism in her rapping and her usage of alter egos and accents." However, not a single reliable source claims that lyricism is what she is known for, the word should be removed to avoid pov pushing and wp:synt. while artists are known for their song lyrics, there's not a difference to make here. Some sources may mention it as an ability, but also mention is has been overshadowed by other aspects of her or her music.
 * 2) The mid-year critics lists called "so far": the article features the following lists: "[the song] appeared on the mid-year "Best Hip Hop Songs of 2021 (So Far) critics list by HipHopDX.[228][229] Minaj's verse on "Fractions" from Beam Me Up Scotty appeared on the mid-year "Best Rap Verses of 2021 So Far" critics list from Complex.[230]. These lists published in July do not hold weight compared to the actual year-end lists, that why they are called "so far...". posting them is just fillers. while there isn't an specific policy to remove mid-year lists, it is just an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * 3) The lead section states "Often cited as the "Queen of Rap" and the "Queen of Hip Hop"... However, the previous RFC titled RfC: Queen of Rap in lead explicitly asked just for one of them—quoting the proposer: "Should the lead refer to Nicki Minaj as the "Queen of Rap"?.... I propose that "Queen of Rap" should be re-added to the lead". with the user never stating that he/she wanted both "Queen of Rap" and "Queen of Hip Hop" in the lede. Thus, there latter shouldn't be included, as there hasn't been a consensus.
 * 4) The ongoing legal case against Minaj/Kenneth Petty should be organized in its own subsection "Legal issues" within "Personal life", instead of the content just floating in the section.
 * 5) The inclusion of "Meaghan Garvey of Billboard remarked that it "paved the way for Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion 'WAP' a few months after." is cherrypicking to satisfy an specific audience. Insted of the literal copy/paste, it can be worded as "Meaghan Garvey of Billboard noted that it preceded other female rap collaborations like Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion's 'WAP'."

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Only going to respond to a couple. For #1, not every artist is known for their song lyrics. The sources provided in the closed discussions above make it clear that she is known for her lyricism, calling it "incredible", "intricate", and "a talent for wordplay". If this was the norm for any artist in her genre, then why describe her ability in this fashion? Clearly it stands out from the pack, and therefore, she is "known for" that ability.As for #3, I would tend to agree that "Queen of Hip Hop" was not directly asked or addressed in that previous RfC. So we can't say it has the support of that RfC. However, there are 8 sources claimed to support that title (as opposed to 10 that support "Queen of Rap"). By that measure, it seems like an acceptable alternate title that has earned nearly as much recognition. It would seem odd to omit it from the lead when the other title is mentioned. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for ordering the bullets, ! on the topic, the three sources provided: one stated that her being a lyricist has been often overshadowed, the second PopMatters is not a reliable source, and the third mentions that she became "an intricate lyricist". However, the lead section states that lyricism is what she's actually known for (which isn't the same as lyrics; definition is "an artist's expression of emotion in an imaginative and beautiful way"). Those two sources mention an ability, but I'm yet to find a source to quote that declares that NM "is known for" her lyricism. The other bullet is "QOHH" nickname, which indeed was not discussed; a number of artists are known by multiple nicknames that can be sourced and totally acceptable within the article, but are all essential to the lead section? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable point about #1. If we are down to 2 sources, then yes, it probably needs more discussion, especially if 1 of those 2 actually states her incredible lyricism is "often overshadowed". As for needing a source that specifically writes the phrase "known for", I'm not sure I agree. If they are describing her lyricism as an aspect of her reputation, then we can reasonably deduce that she is "known for" that aspect. At this point, it comes down to concerns of WP:DUE, not WP:SYNTH.
 * "a number of artists are known by multiple nicknames that can be sourced and totally acceptable within the article, but are all essential to the lead section?"
 * By default, no, but since we had an RfC that permitted one to be there, the other (which clearly ranks close behind) is likely warranted as well. Again, it would just seem odd to include one that just barely edges out the other without mentioning the one it barely edges out. That's just my opinion, of course! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed is wp:undue particarly the part "minority viewpoint" in an opening sentence. I changed the wording in the bulletpoint about the nickname as my point was the inclusion of both was not a consensus. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Guess we'll see what others have to say, but I agree at this time, more sources are needed to show it's a significant viewpoint (in regard to #1). --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I used PopMatters because according to WikiProject_Albums/Sources it is a reliable source for news regarding music. Therefore, this makes three sources supporting her lyricism, and I can easily find even more if that's what's required. Found a couple of more sources:
 * Her Pitchfork bio: "[Minaj] is able to slip into whatever persona her verses require, pairing blistering delivery with crackling lyricism and polychromatic costumes."
 * NME: " [...] "her killer abilities as a rap lyricist mean she should retire the poppy era tracks that made her a household name."
 * Esquire : "It's a staple of Nicki the Lyricist, the venomous, schizophrenic man eater who out-pens her male competitors, and her trail of guest verses as of late proves it. See, she's handily one of the best rappers alive when she wants to be."  shanghai. talk to me 05:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would probably discount the Pitchfork source for this discussion, but the other two are decent complements to the NYT source, which if you ask me, is probably the strongest. The main concern was that NYT wasn't all by its lonesome in its analysis, and apparently it isn't. Previous concern I had is satisfied. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Check above reply for multiple sources showing Minaj's lyricism. We have six so far, but I can find even more if needed.
 * Your entire argument to remove these publications coverage on her music isn't really rooted in any policy or guideline. "It's just an indiscriminate collection of information" is not enough to justify removing reliable sources coverage of these songs in their mid-year lists, especially when there's multiple of them.
 * Editors made comments about the amount of sources for both "Queen of Rap" and "Queen of Hip Hop". And as User:GoneIn60 said, there are many sources that warrant a "Queen of Hip Hop" title also in the lead.
 * Nope. WP:CRITS. It's irresponsible to make an entire subsection devoted to a (currently dropped) legal case as it invites bloated gossip-like prose and excessive details.
 * Wikipedia does not right great wrongs, and as far as I can tell, Say So paving the way for other female rap collaborations is from a reliable and secondary source. It's also quoted to the author instead of being written in Wiki-voice, so proper weight is given in the section itself. If you have a problem with the information given, then take it up with Meaghan Garvey of Billboard, not Wikipedia. shanghai. talk to me 05:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One follow-up comment I have here is that in the "QOR" RfC, there weren't really any direct comments supporting "QOHH". Consensus on the matter should be judged from this discussion, not that one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * agree with this. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Yes. It's reasonable to include it in the lead given the number of independent sources that give her a "queen of rap" or "queen of hiphop" moniker. It remains something WP should attriute, not a label applied in WP's own voice." User:SMCCandlish in the QOR RfC. And again, with 10 sources for Queen of Rap and 8 sources for Queen of Hip Hop, I don't understand the reason to exclude it from the lead. shanghai. talk to me 10:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw those comments as well, but the primary answer here is "Yes" in response to your proposal, ""Queen of Rap" should be re-added to the lead". While the number of sources for QOHH are recognized in this comment, it does not specifically offer support for QOHH in the lead. To clarify, I support having that label in the lead; I just don't think there's much we can glean from the previous RfC. The decision to include should be based on this discussion (or future discussions). --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * RogueShangai, you're missing the point here, those sources mention an ability, but I'm yet to find a source to quote that declares that NM "is known for" her lyricism, as I wrote before; let's see the sources: The Evening Standard said her being a 'lyricist' has been overshadowed by pop and controversies / NME goes about "the poppy era tracks that made her a household name" for a long time have taken the spot instead of her "abilities as a rap lyricist". Similarly, Esquire says she's that "when she wants to be" but for a pop catalogue she has been "sacrificing her good name and impressive eloquence in the gritty rap game." So, the question remains, is she actually known for her lyricism? where's the sources to quote?
 * You also missed the part of 'these lists published in July do not hold weight compared to the actual year-end lists'. are we choosing mid-year when convenient? it is just a "so far" count by publications (explicitly called 'so far') until the actual relevant lists at the end of the year.
 * This was already answered.
 * The essay you cited does not apply here: legal matters are not 'controversies, criticism'. and the content already come from sources. The lawsuit and ongoing development is floating on a section alongside family descriptions.
 * You typed "If you have a problem with the information given, then take it up with Meaghan Garvey of Billboard, not Wikipedia" However, this is not at all representative of my broader point. cherrypicking that comment to satisfy an specific audience is superfluous. The specific comment is about chart placements, why don't just say "[it] preceded other female rap collaborations like [x] on the charts"? Also, again this other essay you cited does not respond to this bulletpoint: this is not a case of exposé nor a vindication.
 * Cornerstonepicker (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. There's entire articles from media dedicated to her lyricism lol, and as I said earlier, I was able to find even more articles with quotes supporting the notability of her lyricism. Cc for these:
 * Time Magazine:
 * NPR Music: There's clear notability here for her lyricism specifically, and you continuing to ignore it is in bad faith.
 * 2. Again, poor WP:IDL argument. Your entire argument is "it shouldn't be here because I said so" despite being reliable sources coverage of the song. You've been trying to revive this debate when it has already died, please drop the stick...
 * 3. Still being discussed. The metrics for "Queen of Hip Hop" were extremely similar to the ones that warranted "Queen of Rap" in her lead, and additionally, editors commented on both titles being very well sourced.
 * 4. How are legal matters not controversial? Inherently they're part of controversy. I'm sure you'd love to add excessive details and gossipy prose about this case to Minaj's article, but this is Wikipedia, not your Twitter feed.
 * 5. The essay you cited talks about including contradictory and significant information, but the rest of the information about "Say So" just describes its impact and Doja's artistry which I don't think you'll be too pleased to see either, that's why I haven't added it in. Your accusations of cherrypicking are baseless aspersions. shanghai. talk to me 12:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * After looking it over, I'll weigh in on #4...
 * I agree that a subsection for the lawsuit under "Personal life" would benefit the article, if not purely for organizational purposes. Call it "Lawsuit" or "Legal issue". The flow of that section is interrupted by the mention of Petty's issues in 2020, which fast forwards to August 2021, then pivots back to February 2021 in the next paragraph to discuss her father's death. Separating this out would make sense. Examples of this can be seen at Rihanna, Kevin Spacey, and Martin Lawrence. I'm not sure why we need all this discussion for a relatively minor change. Nip this in the bud now and weed this minor stuff out, or this thread will become absurdly long and uninviting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, I'd go by 'bold', but I'll just be reverted by the user that is saying no!, I guess every change has to be like this for this article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm? shanghai. talk to me 01:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see this talk page discussion by User:SNUGGUMS on Katy Perry. I was looking to see why there wasn't a personal life section on her article, but now I understand the editor's rationale. A specific section like "Personal life" or "Legal issues" can invite gossip-like prose and speculation, especially on a highly controversial personal matter of Minajs. And again, please see WP:CRITS. Legal issues are inherently controversial. That's why I'm being wary of seperating it off for no reason.
 * Additionally, I have actually been trying to nip a lot of this in the bud, but Cornerstonepicker has been beating the dead horse for some of these bulletpoints, given that he's been trying to remove some of this information without a policy based reason for six months now.. I don't see why this coverage of the song in lists he's attempted to remove over, and over, and over. Again, my point about beating the dead horse. shanghai. talk to me 02:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well now I'm even more confused. We already have a "Personal life" section that no one is proposing we remove, so I'm not sure how a discussion about getting rid of the "Personal life" section is relevant. The rationale over there was that the Katy Perry article benefited from a complete restructure for a number of reasons, not just to preemptively discourage "fancruft, gossip, and speculation". The latter was more of an added bonus in one editor's view. In my opinion, there's no reason to put the cart before the horse in this article. We can cross that bridge if and when it becomes an issue. For now, we just need baby steps, and putting the legal issue into its own subsection would be just that.
 * "I have actually been trying to nip a lot of this in the bud" – Just so it's clear, that comment was directed at both of you. The level of input going in isn't worth the level of output being produced, especially for #3 and #4. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW: As you warned Cornerstonepicker earlier, please don't ping uninvolved editors inappropriately to this discussion.
 * I do agree with this. I don't know how "'Legal issues' can invite gossip-like prose" is an argument against this; nobody is discussing gossip nor unsourced content. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (Addendum to previous comment): I'm also confused by the citing of WP:CRITS. This is just an essay that doesn't hold any weight, but even if we take it into account, I don't think it's saying what you think it's saying. A legal dispute, such as a lawsuit, can be placed in its own dedicated section. CRITS says to avoid section titles that have negative connotations. Titles like "Legal issue" and "Lawsuit" do not convey a negative connotation. Featured article Bob Dylan, for example, actually has a "Lawsuit" subsection under "Personal life", so there's precedence for doing this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, at least from looking at the table of contents, that article did not have a "Lawsuit" section when it was last reviewed for FA in 2008. A better featured article example would be Taylor Swift who's at least semi-notable for her lawsuits against other people, yet those lawsuits are not mentioned in a section of their own. There's even more precedence to not seperate highly contentious legal issues into their own section, because Taylor Swift is a highly edited, highly viewed, very popular article on Wikipedia judging by the page visits, and Bob Dylan is not.
 * I cited WP:CRITS because of the value of Seperating it into legal issues is undue negative weight.  shanghai. talk to me 14:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First, no need to ping me each time; I'm watching. Yes, Bob Dylan's lawsuit was in 2021, so naturally it would not have been in the article in 2008. The page does have over 1400 watchers, but sure maybe not the best example then. Another is J. K. Rowling, which actually has a level 2 heading "Legal disputes" (it was a level 3 heading when promoted). Regardless, the overall point is that there's no policy or guideline that says a BLP article shouldn't have a section with such a title. It comes down to a matter of preference and need, and the need for one here has been described. The "weight" issue you bring up is naturally balanced by providing both sides of the dispute; all significant viewpoints as published should be represented. Doing so satisfies WP:WEIGHT. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First, no need to ping me each time; I'm watching. Yes, Bob Dylan's lawsuit was in 2021, so naturally it would not have been in the article in 2008. The page does have over 1400 watchers, but sure maybe not the best example then. Another is J. K. Rowling, which actually has a level 2 heading "Legal disputes" (it was a level 3 heading when promoted). Regardless, the overall point is that there's no policy or guideline that says a BLP article shouldn't have a section with such a title. It comes down to a matter of preference and need, and the need for one here has been described. The "weight" issue you bring up is naturally balanced by providing both sides of the dispute; all significant viewpoints as published should be represented. Doing so satisfies WP:WEIGHT. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * RogueShangai, you're misinterpreting the bulletpoints and aligning such against essays. For bulletpoint one, it mentions the abilty, but not that she's known for that. Both sources cited suggest it is not a constant aspect. Keep in mind, the opening sentence can't be a minority pov. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "It is not a constant aspect." "Minaj's lyrical prowess is undeniable." You're asking for a source which says specifically she's known for her lyricism, but with the amount of coverage her lyricism gets that there are entire articles dedicated to it, that it's constantly mentioned in articles, and I've provided seven top-tier secondary reliable sources that all mention her lyricism... As GoneIn60 said, it is reasonable to deduce that her lyricism is notable if the media mentions it this much. Unfortunately I don't think you actually want to listen to my reasons. shanghai. talk to me 02:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * your claim the amount of coverage implies many articles are either headlining "The lyricsm of NM" or studying it deeply. That's not the case. Already talked about Evening Standard and Esquire on the previous comments. The one reference that comes the closest to your claim is minority viewpoint. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Many articles aren't headlining The Lyricism of Nicki Minaj and studying her bars deeply" Seriously? Do you want me to pull the receipts? Google is free.
 * Billboard: Nicki Minaj’s Best Punchlines From The ‘Queen’ Album
 * Entertainment Weekly: The 15 best lyrics from Nicki Minaj's Queen
 * GQ: These Are the Best Nicki Minaj Verses
 * Rolling Stone: Gritty in Pink: Nicki Minaj’s 10 Fiercest Disses
 * Complex: The 25 Best Nicki Minaj Verses
 * Mic: 13 Lyrics That Prove Nicki Minaj Is One of the Greatest Rappers of All Time
 * Evening Standard: Ten of Nicki Minaj's best ever lyrics and verses
 * Elle Magazine: Here Are the Juiciest Lyrics From Nicki Minaj's New Album 'Queen'
 * VH1: Nicki Minaj’s 15 Fiercest Rap Verses
 * XXL: Nicki Minaj ‘Queen’ Album: 20 of the Best Lyrics
 * Yes, they are. They very much are lol. Furthermore, the Rolling Stone article literally says: The Queens rapper is known for writing the sharpest lyrics in rap. 💀 shanghai. talk to me 15:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * that RS reference is minority pov. and lyrics ≠ lyricism. The definition of the concept lyricism is "an artist's expression of emotion in an imaginative and beautiful way". "[x] is known for her lyrics" ≠ "[X] is known for her lyricism".  Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From a high level, lyricism is the "expression of emotion" which doesn't have to take the form of lyrics. Lyricism can be expressed in other forms of art, such as paintings for example. However, in hip hop and rap, the term is undeniably referring to lyrical abilities in the form of style and actual lyrics. What are artists rapping about? Are they telling a story through their lyrics? The broad definition of lyricism takes on a specific meaning in this musical genre, and when lyrics and lyrical abilities are being complimented, so is the lyricism. If you're known for one, then you're known for the other in this context. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * that opens a debate that every rapper/singer/songwriter with a source that says "known for lyrics" can have "lyricism" on its opening section. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Rappers are known for their style, influence, lyrics, chart-topping singles/albums, awards, controversies, etc., or some combination of those. What ultimately gets put in the lead is always up for debate at their respective article, but I don't think it's an all-or-none scenario when it comes to lyricism. As ironic as it sounds, not every rapper is actually known for their lyrical abilities, and while many are, only a few tend to stand out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, another source to add to the mix:
 * Uproxx: Nicki Minaj’s New Song 'Fractions' Draws Criticism For Lyrics – "...Nicki showing off the lyricism her fans fell in love with."
 * --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see where you coming from. My pov remains, when I search rappers that are known for their lyricsm (those a few), countless references pop out mentioning it straight forward, a number of them analyzing their meaning; undeniabe. there isn't a case of grouping them or seeing what comes to closest, in order to be on their opening lead section. So far, I've read "According to Rolling Stone, she's known for writing 'sharpest' lyrics", which belongs on an Artistry section; (idk how to translate the uprox quote since it mentions fans).
 * on the other hand, I'm yet to read a solid argument against the subsection 'legal issue', what should be done? As well as the "QOHH" nickname that wasn't a consensus. Cornerstonepicker (talk)

The Uproxx source is just another example of her being known for her lyricism. Yes, it's technically in the context of her "fans", but does that really change anything? Not really, especially when complemented by other sources that identify her stand-out lyrical talents. Unless additional sources are brought up, that's about all there is to say on the subject.In regard to where we're at in this discussion, there's not enough participation to claim consensus for anything. What I suggest is that both of you treat my viewpoints as a third opinion to break the stalemate, similar to the WP:3O process. Neither editor is forced to abide by the outcome, but doing so would show a massive amount of good faith for the process and a willingness to compromise. Both sides would then at least have gained some ground. Let #1 and #3 slide in favor of shanghai, and let #4 go through in your favor. That would narrow this discussion down to 2 bullet points remaining, and I'd be willing to take a closer look at both and weigh in as well. If one of you can't accept that, then we shelve #1, #3, and #4, taking no action in the article and moving on to the last two points. Then at the end, we can make a final decision on what needs to be escalated to an RfC. Personally, I think there's very little chance that an RfC would change the outcome of #3 or #4. I strongly suggest we cross some of these items off the list, or a lot more of the community's time will get wasted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60, sorry for the late answer, busy days at work. ok I'm processing this proposal because those bulletpoints that wouldn't have a follow-up are the most important ones, since they are on lead section. before saying anything, is this rfc from months ago with many editors involved valid? no new source has been published since.btw, the whole Controversy section was removed (?). Cornerstonepicker (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that July-August RfC actually had less participation than the most recent one in December, so there's that. And generally, you can begin another RfC when new information or previously undiscussed arguments are brought to the table (per WP:CCC). Shanghai brought both this and this as new sources. It's also worth pointing out that one editor (SMcCandlish) participated in both and actually reversed their stance. With that said, if you feel it was malformed in some way, shouldn't have happened, or believe participation wasn't great enough, I suggest you bring it up at a relevant WikiProject to gauge outside feedback. You can also go to a Village Pump forum and ask for additional feedback there (especially if there's not many responses at the WikiProject). Your best option is to get consensus first that another RfC is needed before opening a new one, if that's your plan.As for the bullet points, perhaps shelve #1 for an RfC then, since that one could use more discussion, but allow #3 (favors Shanghai) and #4 (favors you) to slide for now. The previous "Queen of Rap" RfC makes a very strong case to allow "Queen of Hip Hop", which is why I suggest dropping it and compromising. Up to you. The Controversies section should be addressed in a separate thread. That's a major change that really needs discussion if you ask me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those two sources are for "QOR" not "QOHH". Ok, I take your word (on #3 and #4) and your recommendations. #2 and #5 are pending. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , those 2 sources show why there was a 2nd "QOR" RfC only a few months later. Shanghai brought them to the table as newly-discovered (actually there was 3, but 1 was contested).
 * , looks like Cornerstonepicker is willing to let #3 and #4 go as suggested above. Waiting for your feedback, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I already added a "legal issues" subheader per your suggestion because I do want to show good faith but now I'm confused. Should I remove it? And yes, for 3 it should stay the way as it is given the sources shanghai. talk to me 04:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize you did. Nope, keep it. That's exactly what was needed. Still need more discussion on #2 and #5, and #1 was shelved for a possible RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On that topic, I don't understand why Jennifer Hough is referred to as "Kenneth Petty's alleged victim" in the section when Petty went to jail for it. She's a SA victim:   Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources also use "alleged victim", (here, here, and here) The case was dropped by Hough because Hough failed to submit evidence to the court in time. Petty also asserts that he took the plea deal because he was a minor who could not pay for his own lawyers. It doesn't make sense that she wasn't able to submit any evidence of harassment from either Minaj or Petty. shanghai. talk to me 16:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hough is a victim of SA. The primary charge Petty was convicted of was reduced in a plea deal from rape to attempted rape, but he was also convicted of second degree assault and second degree unlawful imprisonment. So it really depends on the context in the source. If they are specifically talking about rape, then it's still an allegation and not proven in court. If they are talking about sexual assault as a whole, then she'll likely be called a victim instead of alleged victim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * got it. Then I think "sexual assault victim" should be instead of "alleged victim". the latter is misleading. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of confused on what you mean here, wdym? I'm only hesitant to say anything because this is a contentious section that can invite gossip like prose and poor writing easily, so I'm just saying to be careful. shanghai. talk to me 07:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What's confusing? The question asked was why we're using "alleged" in the article. I was saying it depends on context. Hough is an alleged victim of rape, but she is a confirmed victim of sexual assault, as proven in a court of law. So depending on how the situation is being discussed in the article, we should keep that in mind. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * mte. between "alleged rape victim" (an status pre 1996 trial) and "victim of sexual assault" (proven in court), we should go with the latter. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * hi, sry any follow-up in the other bulletpoints? as the "legal issues" section disappeared...Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
cc
 * As I've said many times before, per WP:UNENCYC, you cannot simply use "This is unencyclopedic" as an argument to remove content.
 * Both NYT sources say that Minaj is "the most influential female rapper of all time."
 * Both the statements of Hough's lawyer and Minaj's lawyer are included. Your edit was also WP:SYNT because it was only her lawyers claim, as noted in the actual article yet there is no mention of that in your edit. But both their statements are already included, adding any more would be WP:UNDUE.
 * Adding the content you opposed in Minaj's article to every other female rapper's article is highly WP:POINT. shanghai. talk to me 14:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) How is "she is grateful for content creators" encyclopedic for Life and career section?
 * 2) You had written "She's one of the most influential rappers of all time". genderless. that's not in those sources. Then just using tnyt for most influential female rapper of all time is pushing a minority pov to the lead section, when it's already placed in its proper section. Btw the quote of that article is "Two albums later and she /is already being hailed/ with some justification, as the most influential female rapper of all time". "hailed" by who? that wording is reporting. The second issue is, that superlative (the most..) is outdated because the article was written back in 2012.
 * 3) Why do you remove the reason why Jennifer is taking down the lawsuit and moving it to California? It's inconclusive to leave it at "dropped the lawsuit" without explaining why. The statement is incomplete and misleading... Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Still the exact same argument.
 * 2. Yes it is in those sources. Evening Standard list of most influential hip hop artists includes both men and women. And it's not a minority pov because it's attributed to The New York Times, it is not written in wiki-voice. Same text has already been used in the lead for years, the onus to exclude the content from the lead is on you. And you seem to have no issue with using articles for honorific names that go as far back as 1986. Why another case of hot and cold?
 * 3. Why would someone that "has no bias" against Nicki Minaj know so much about a dropped legal case? Also, promoting a WP:SYNT version of said reason, because your edits fail to note that it is only her lawyer's claim? It's not left at just "dropped the lawsuit", the statement of her lawyer that she is moving it to California is included. Attempting to shift the weight of the article text to be non-neutral is counterproductive... shanghai. talk to me 19:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) But you're not answeing the question...
 * 2) I explained it explicity. Couldn't make myself more clear: Superlatives (the most..., the highest..., the best....) are superlatives that come with dates. This is not imaginary titles. The New York Times reported it in 2012... it's been ten years. And it's pushing minority POV because is one source. also: "is already being hailed, with some justification.." - hailed by who?
 * 3) Because is right there on the Rolling Stone article... why are you against adding the reason the victim gave for the situation? "moved to California because..." You have the reason right here "because jurisdictional issues require Hough to move her claims against Minaj there". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022
I’m here to request an update to the main picture used on this wiki page. Here’s the link to a more recent picture I found https://twitter.com/calzmaraj/status/1509324573388554242?s=21&t=slqkZJgDCEZ4oH33BFJ8Qg Joseph lol (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Most recent picture of Nicki Minaj Joseph lol (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent picture of Nicki Minaj Joseph lol (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There's no evidence that the image is under a free license. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC
(RFC per previous discussion)

In the opening sentence of the lead section, it is claimed that the subject is known "for her lyricism". However, not a single reliable source has stated that lyricism is what she is known for. Artists may stand out for their song lyrics (which is not the same as lyricism), but there isn't any important difference to push that here. Some sources may mention it as an ability, describing it with an adjective, or what a group of fans think, but others also mention is has been overshadowed by other aspects of her or her music. It is a strong claim for an opening sentence that is only found in this Wiki; the word should be removed to avoid pushing minority pov and wp:synt.

These are examples of sources stating someone is actually known for their lyricism:


 * Complex Rapsody is known for her lyricism..
 * Paste Noname, known for her lyricism..
 * HP J Cole, although Kendrick is also known for his lyricism
 * Indian Express Brodha V Known for his lyricism.
 * Billboard Kendrick.. lyrical acclaim.
 * Sentinel Jay known for his lyrical

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose per WP:SNOW. There has already been a long discussion about this above in this talk page. A neutral uninvolved editor gave their WP:3O that you should let it slide, because the sources that talked about her lyricism were already discussed. WP:DROPTHESTICK. shanghai. talk to me 11:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, re-read it, #1 was shelved for a possible RfC was the conclusion. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose as per RogueShanghai's points. Maxwell King 123321 12:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated, the conclusion of the previous discussion was actually to open an RFC; so that claim is false. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * comment I'd oppose it if there were no sources. I've never heard of this person, but one of the first results I got was this one hailing her for her "witty lyricism" https://www.thepostathens.com/article/2022/02/10-songs-turning-ten-2012 . Maybe it is possible to add this source? And, there are 14 mentions of lyrics in the article. I don't think it's a jump from "Upon release, critics praised the production and personal lyrics" to include something about lyrics in the lede. Maybe it needs to be reworked to something like: "She is noted for her versatility as an artist, her animated flow, lyricism, and in her rapping and her usage of alter egos and accents." Then, readers do to not get confused and believe animated is modifying lyricism? With neglecting the oxford comma, it makes it a little ambiguous. Fred (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's an important difference between lyrics and lyricism though. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you explain that difference? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that The Post Athens is a stundents newspapers, which should be avoided to use as source. yes, one thing is simple song lyrics, and other lyricism, which is related to Lyric Poetry, is "an intense personal quality expressive of feeling or emotion in an art (such as poetry or music)"   Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a wiggle word. Lyricism, personal lyrics, 'lyrical queen', the reviewers who have criticized her as having hypocritical lyrics, it's related. I don't have strong feelings either way really whether it is included or not, but i lean towards including something about lyrics in the lede, even if it's a hint of the controversy. Fred (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "controversial lyrics" maybe? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Just because something is sourced it doesn't mean it is due in the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a long discussion about this specific thing in the talk page section above. It's definitely important context. shanghai. talk to me 05:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And the conclusion was to open a RFC. I agree with . Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove lyricism per WP:LEAD which says the lead section should be a summary of article body text. Her rapping "flow" and her alter egos are well-supported by article body descriptions, but not lyricism. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Another editor literally commented that there are 14~ mentions of lyrics in the article. Whereas in the article as is right now there are 6 mentions of flow. In the talk page discussion above, I cited 10 sources that include (but aren't limited to) Billboard, Rolling Stone, Elle... that all revolve around Minaj and only Minaj's lyrics and verses. If you want me to quote the Rolling Stone article word for word: "The Queens rapper is known for writing the sharpest lyrics in rap." shanghai. talk to me 20:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lyricism is a descriptive word which involves more than clever lyrics. The word means beautiful and artistic, not raunchy or sassy or sexy. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In this context, lyricism means clever bars. If your issue is with the word lyricism specifically, then why are you trying to remove the entire thing? I've already shown a multitude of sources that proves she is notable for her lyrics. Additionally, why imply that raunchy, sassy, or sexy lyrics can't be beautiful or artistic? Doesn't that come across as a bit misogynist? shanghai. talk to me 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can stick your "misogynistic" accusation in the trash.
 * For the issue at hand, basic English language comprehension would go a long way. FYI, my test scores were very, very high in English when I was 18 years old, and my language skills have only risen since then. I'm on very firm ground when I assert that the word lyricism is associated with graceful beauty, gentle romanticism, stuff like that. Something lyrical brings singing to mind. Not so much with hip hop.
 * Certainly the English language can change and evolve. Some modern writers have adopted the word lyricism for hip hop, twisting the meaning. For instance, the young Mr. James Guida conflated an abundance of hip hop lyrics with "lyricism" in this 2017 piece in the New Yorker magazine. The word "lyricism" in Guida's article title was never supported by argument in the article body, but if he is correct about the existence of lyricism in hip hop (doubtful), then you would have to notice that Nicki Minaj isn't mentioned. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about article content, not a "boasting about 1980 test scores" contest. I would ask that you keep the discussion professional, and focus on the article content. With that in mind, perspective is important: female artists are much less recognized than man artists for their musical work, such as is the case with stars like Taylor Swift and Madonna. Even so, if you actually look at other sources besides the one you picked, Minaj's lyricism is very well noted in so many articles....
 * Her Pitchfork profile: [Minaj] pairs blistering delivery with crackling lyricism and polychromatic costumes.
 * The Guardian: Minaj’s lyricism and skills in the studio have made her far more than just an opinionated pop star with a platform.
 * Washington Post: That’s a line of lyricism that Minaj has excelled in from jump.
 * NME: Everyone just wanted to hear the elite lyricism of [Minaj] herself.
 * Okayplayer: [Minaj] roars all over the track without sacrificing her lyricism or sounding offbeat.
 * E! [Minaj] featured a bunch of A-listers on her own LP, but also lent some jaw-dropping verses and brilliant lyricism to other amazing artists' songs, too.
 * Fader: For her lyricism, her style, and her influence on rappers today, Minaj rightfully deserves to be named one of the greats. shanghai. talk to me 02:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okayplayer is a not a notable source, nor e-online. None of these sources (notable source) state she's known for her lyricism, and yet's it's the opening sentence. that's somebody pushing it. Do you see how explicit and easy to source is for the examples I gave? And please don't be calling editors mysoginist for having a comment different to yours. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've provided seventeen entire sources that talk about her lyrics or lyricism and a source that outright states "Minaj is known for writing the sharpest lyrics in rap." If you want to keep pushing that Minaj isn't known for her lyricism, the sources state otherwise. And don't twist my words, I said that his implication could come off as misogynist. Name anywhere where I said that he was a misogynist. shanghai. talk to me 12:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lyricism is not synomymous with clever/sharp/inventive/good lyrics. According to several dictionaries, lyricism = melodiousness and/or intense emotional-ness. It appears that it is being argued earlier that lyricism has acquired a distinct meaning within this musical genre, unfortunately readers aren't going to understand that and are going to understand the 'standard' meaning. Pincrete (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lyricism is a very broad term that encapsulates a wide range of artistic expression in different artforms, including paintings, sculptures, poetry, and of course, music. The responses here seem to imply that lyricism doesn't apply to the hip hop genre, because it must mean "beautiful" in some way, but that is simply not true. There are countless sources that speak of lyricism in rap music, referencing the actual lyrics, the stories behind the lyrics, and an artist's style. These are all forms of lyricism, and if you're in search of rock solid sources, here's just the first two I came across from the NYT
 * A Celebration of Rap, and a Shrewd Study of Its Lyricism
 * Brandy Scored Her 'Dream Role' in 'Queens'
 * The notion that a rapper's artistic style in flow and lyrics somehow doesn't translate to lyricism is a losing argument. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The meaning of aesthetic terms like "lyricism" are always going to be up for debate -- as you said, in several dictionaries, lyricism is melodiousness or "intense emotional-ness", both of which are subjective qualities. It's outside the scope of an encyclopedia to determine whether a work of art or artist has the property of lyricism; however it's perfectly appropriate to state that someone is "noted for lyricism" as long as the term is used to describe one's work from enough reliable sources. You and I might not think think much of Minaj's lyricism, but that really doesn't matter as long as there are some people that do. tofubird 09:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose removing lyricism. Based on discussion at this page, ample sourcing has been provided to show that Minaj has been recognized for her lyricism. Editors may disagree with that application of the term in the hip hop genre based on a textbook definition, but that goes off-topic and challenges what strong sources have published on the subject, including the NY Times. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
To replace "lyricism" with "lyrics" in the opening sentence of the lead section, per, , and comments. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * agree, per proposer and prev arguments. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, "lyrics" will make the point quite well. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * agree That works. Fred (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, "lyrics" makes sense and better fits all the claims made about her lyrics. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Too vague. If you're going to change it to lyrics, at the very least follow an important high quality source such as Rolling Stone and specify what makes her lyrics unique from others: for example,  Per Rolling Stone source: "The Queens rapper is known for writing the sharpest lyrics in rap."  shanghai. talk to me 14:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree based on arguments and evidence. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – When sources describe her notable lyricism, they are describing more than just the lyrics. They are describing her wit, humor, style, flow, and overall artistic expression in her music. "Lyrics" is only one aspect of that expression. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ^^ Every artist is known for their lyrics. The proposal fails to actually outline what makes Minaj's lyrics different from those other artists. And also, it is highly unusual to ping uninvolved editors to an RfC discussion. shanghai talk (they/them) 06:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, in so far as sources explicitly uses the word lyricism, and that to be known for one's lyrics implies that knowledge of her lyrics themselves have entered public consciousness. I think that's actually a higher bar to qualify than just being noted for one's lyricism. tofubird 08:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Deciding
Incorrectly it was decided by two users on here to delete the tragedy involving Minaj's father. This is akin to going to the Michael Jordan page and removing the situation with James Jordan, his father. It doesn't matter if you think getting the article to fine or better status is the only important thing. You may not revise history.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You added off-topic stuff, unreferenced, non-neutral. What did you expect but removal? Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , the material you're referring to wasn't removed, it was just moved. Read the 6th paragraph in this section: Nicki Minaj. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's got to be a first; sure enough. Looks like one way of "hiding" or burying it. However the info is still there.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj's update
Has she released a new song yet 41.115.113.63 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"Life and Career"
Is there a reason that Nicki Minaj's page is formatted so that her career, her personal life, and her controversies are placed in the same section (with the exception of her COVID-19 scandal I guess counting as "Other Activities")? This is highly unusual for public figures and seems possibly created with the intent to bury information. Whether or not that suspicion is true, it makes the page fairly difficult to navigate and to find information quickly. Additionally, as Minaj is a known intentional provocateur (to my understanding, it's why a lot of people love her) it seems very unusual to not only not have a controversy section, but to barely discuss her controversies in the article at all - or to even mention in her public image section that this is part of her public image. Arguably her song with 6ix9ine, Trollz, plays homage to her public image being that of a "troll" and the song would not work without that knowledge.

The overhaul I am suggesting is obviously a lift, and I don't want to step on the toes of legacy editors, so I thought I'd float the need for a restructuring on the talk page first. H-influenzae (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I'm not sure if you'll see this since your page says you are retired, but I changed it to Life and Career because at its peak, the page before restructuring had more sections than a huge page like Madonna, who's had a far lengthier career. I assure you, there is no "burying of information" here, look at articles like Katy Perry and Lady Gaga having controversies in their Life and Career section as well. Thank you. rogueshanghai chat (they/them) 07:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

How to improve Artistry and Legacy section?
Taking a critical look at this article, it seems that the Artistry section needs some updating to modern standards whereas the Legacy section needs to be restructured. I want to update the quality of the article, but I'm opening it up here first on the talk page because I'm not sure which sections are too outdated to stay and what new stuff needs to be put in (i.e, Minaj's rapping style post 2018) rogueshanghai chat (they/them) 07:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Early Life and Childhood
The first sentence of the first paragraph in this section is

“Onika Tanya Maraj was born on December 8, 1982, in the Saint James district of Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, on December 8, 1982.”

I believe it is an error to list the birth date twice. I am unable to make the edit therefore bring it up here. 76.24.57.75 (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's been corrected. Thank you for pointing this out. —C.Fred (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Beginning write up (Better)
Hey so who ever is the editor can you add starships to where it says the pink print album since that was her biggest hit durning that ERA and an iconic song you have anaconda and supper bass in the main write up it should be starships as well added when you first click on her Wikipedia page 67.84.195.148 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Pink print reloaded album (2012)
I see a editor says it was edited but when you come to nicki Minaj Wikipedia it does not show yet. Under her picture where it says The pink print reloaded album album (2012) it should state the album produced the hit single “Starships” that is Nicki biggest hit single in terms of sales it sold over 7.2 million copies worldwide and broke records for her and should be highlighted along with anaconda and Superbass. 67.84.195.148 (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj front page
Ok where under nicki picture with the bio there are 2 songs missing where pink Friday reloaded album it should highlight starships since that’s her biggest song from that era and then where queen is at Chun li was the break out and big song that need to be highlighted as well her main songs shouldn’t be missing. 67.84.195.148 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nickiminaj2022.jpg

The 'Barbz'
I noticed today that there isn't any prose in this article about Minaj's fans, the Barbz. I looked online and found the usual "fans chase artist" shenanigans. Then I looked further (years back) and found some really in depth stuff like this from Rolling Stone, this piece from The New Yorker about how Minaj's fans shield her from criticism, this from The Daily Beast about how the Barbz threatened to rape and kill a blogger for criticizing Minaj, this from The Atlantic about the Barbz and vaccine hesitancy, this from XXL about the Barbz protesting outside CDC headquarters in defense of Minaj. Here's this from Mic about the Barbz (and Minaj) attacking a blogger unrelated to the first one above. It's not all bad, but a large portion of it is. Wanted to gauge everyone's thoughts. — VersaceSpace  🌃 22:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I definitely feel that some kind of mention of the Barbz is worthy of inclusion; Vice saying her fanbase has "quite the reputation online"; BuzzFeed News article; NYT article. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷)  - (✉) 15:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a subsection would be a good idea. I just don't know which section it would go under. — VersaceSpace  🌃 15:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned at the bottom of the Public image section. Trillfendi (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added that after seeing this thread :) 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷)  - (✉) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good start. The rest can be written over time. — VersaceSpace  🌃 21:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022
change this Jaidenhere (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In the intro
When going through the introduction on the top of the page there is a double her 178.232.49.85 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out! I've fixed it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Hi editor, as to not edit war we can talk about it here.

The lead already states that Nicki is the "Queen of Rap", and this implies that she is highly regarded for her rapping skills, which she objectively is. There are more words about her influence in the Legacy section. Furthermore, you keep merging the first paragraph (Pink Friday-Pink Friday Roman Reloaded) and (The Pinkprint-Queen-SFG) era, but these should be separated as they are different points in her career.

I'm here to improve the content as a whole, I'm not "part of the opps" or "Bardigang". I'm here for Wikipedia, not stan wars. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok I’m sorry i thought you were doing that because you no a lot of those fans really don’t like Nicki. I figured if it was put in the lead paragraph it would be better but i also see your point as well. EnjoyLife1 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

So one thing i thought we should make better is the era difference do you think songs like bang bang should be noticed more in the pinkprint era instead considering it’s a huge part of her career as well? EnjoyLife1 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023
Can you add "singer" to the introduction? She sings in many of her songs, like Va Va Voo, Automattic, Starships, The Night is Still Young, etc. 2A07:23C0:8:7000:0:0:0:12D2 (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ As the change was made without an edit summary back on December 7, I feel at liberty to restore her MOS:ROLEBIOs. If there is any future disagreement about her titles, a consensus should be reached here. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 09:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2023
Please change “Trinidadian-American” back to “Trinidadian-born”. It was just recently changed to “Trinidadian-American”, which is incorrect, as Minaj herself has stated she is not an American. She immigrated to the United States as an illegal immigrant with both parents from Trinidad as well. It is unknown if Minaj has U.S. citizenship. 2601:182:100:9FD0:A1E8:271B:997B:6865 (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2023
She was named Billboard/VIBE's no.10 Greatest Rapper of All Time and she is the only woman that spawned a spot in the Top 10. GABBYMS (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, when found out that i made it to the top ten i remember telling my mom about it in tears i was so happy Mesalamine (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

English
how you talk English learning class@' 👻' 41.114.141.126 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello 41.114.141.126 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023
It says in the article that SuperBass went octuple-platinum, but it actually went 10x platinum AKA Diamond, which you can see in the official RIAA table which tracks these things officially. It was awarded Diamond status on November 9, 2021.

This request is to change the wording from "and was eventually certified octuple-platinum in the U.S." to "and was eventually certified diamond in the U.S."

Source: https://www.riaa.com/gold-%20platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=Nicki+Minaj&col=title&ord=asc

Orangethemarker (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  04:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo change
Could someone please change her photo to the Barbie premiere one. Please, and thanks! Kamo0606 (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Done ✅ Sistah926 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And undone: there is no evidence the Barbie premiere photo is under a free license. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Short description of Minaj
Isn't she an American rapper, albeit born in Trinidad, instead of just a US-based rapper?

Could it say Trinidadian-American rapper or Trinidadian-born American rapper? ViveLaSuisse (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding lead ethnicity...
Per MOS:ETHNICITY, the proper lead ethnicity should read "American and Trinidadian" as Maraj holds citizenship in both states...

"...In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity."

- "Context", Wikipedia Manual of Style: Biography

- IMPӨƧƧIBᄂΣ PЯӨJΣᄃŤ  20:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Maraj holds citizenship in both states"
 * What reliable, third-party proof confirms this? Last we heard per article, Minaj came to the U.S "illegally", but her parents were subsequently able to get lawful permanent residency.
 * Though for what it's worth, her career and life have all been in the U.S primarily, not Trinidad. So IMO (at least for now), Trinidadian-born seems fine. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Do not add Trinidadian-born
She has both nationalities, she only has important activities in the US. See MOS:CONTEXTBIO she lives and works in the US. Ethnicity does not belong in lead see MOS:ETHNICITY she is Trinidadian by origin and by birth and is American by naturalization, she became known for being American, not Trinidandian-born. She also has Trinidadian citizenship and origins, if you add "Trinidadian-born" you are saying that she was only born there but she does not have the citizenship of that country and much less of that origin, I change it to only "American". Bogartlipa1989 (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Literally she was born in Trinidad. and she also mentioned I'm Beyoncé's song "I woke up like this" that she was Trinidadian. Also Trinidadian-born means she was born in Trinidad (which she was). Trinidadian-born is required to be there. Like she can't just be American if she wasn't born in America with the "(Born nationality)-born" in front of it. Stop removing it. Cynarisoft (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that Wikipedia's rules say that the (born nationality)-born label is only for people who were born in countries other than their own, countries where they were only born but do not have origins from that country, much less the citizenship, as is the case of Luis Miguel, Julieta Venegas or Tatiana. In the case of Minaj, she has Trinidadian origins and ancestry and was also born there and has Trinidadian citizenship, but nevertheless she was raised, educated, lives and her entire career is based in the US, if you add the "Trinidandian-born" label It is as if you were saying that she was born there but it has nothing to do with that country, which is illogical taking into account the data that I already explained above.  see MOS:ETHNICITY Bogartlipa1989 (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Although Minaj has Trinidadian citizenship and Trinidadian origins, this label cannot be in the description since she does not have important activities in this country, as is the case of Santana, Aya Nakamura, or Mina, artists born in their country of origin but are based in another country. Bogartlipa1989 (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you continue to have problems with this edition, I propose two options:

First Option: Taking into account that she calls herself Trinidandian and has always put the name of her country high, in the description only add "Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, know professionally as Nicki Minaj is a Trinidadian-American rapper, singer, and songwriter" as in Dua Lipa's article. Second Option: If there is no way to solve the problem in the description, just add "Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, know professionally how Nicki Minaj is a rapper, singer, and songwriter" as in Tina Turner's article. If you don't choose one of these two the article will continue to say only "American" and nothing more. Bogartlipa1989 (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Personally I second what Cynarisoft said, her not having "important activities" in the country she was born in doesn't magically change where she was born, especially due to the recently-questionable nature of her immigration status 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In some cases, simply stating "[insert country]-born" can be applicable if the subject is rather extraordinary or there is too much conflict. As of now, she had a questionable nature of immigrating to the country and no public confirmation of her citizenship status. If she is actually a U.S citizen, then I'd be fine with just stating "American rapper, etc", since she's been in the country since she was a child, lives there, and everything else is American aside from spending a few years in Trinidad. But "Trinidadian-born" with the note explaining her situation, as it is now, is fine imo. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023
Please change where it refers to pink Friday two lead song being super freaky girl. Super freaky girl is not the lead for her album. She said in a ig post recently it’s not. She hasn’t dropped her lead yet 2601:240:CA02:3D40:CCDB:383E:5C86:659A (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical Error
Last sentence of (top) contains grievous grammatical errors as well as unsourced claims. "Throughout her career, Minaj's outspoken views, social media disputes and her fanbase have received significant media,and as of 2023 nicki minaj's net worth is estimated to be 150 million dollars" 2A01:E0A:DF2:BAA0:AD10:9DFB:D8F5:27D1 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Public Image Section
The following except has recently been added to the public image section of this artilce: "Minaj's fanbase, known as the "Barbz", have been reported as often being militant towards Minaj's critics, including incidents of reported doxxing, cyberbullying, and death threats." The information is well sourced so it has place in the article but I dont believe the public image section is the appropriate section for it. Most artists with a large fan following have a subset of crazed fans who engage in activities such as doxxing, cyberbullying and death threats (the same has happened in the past with Beyonce's fanbase). The actions of this minority are not necessarily representative of the public image of the artists they support. Instantwatym (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The country is called Trinidad AND TOBAGO...
The country she was born in is Trinidad AND TOBAGO, and the demonym is Trinidadian and Tobagonian. She was born on the island of Trinidad, but that's not a nation. This article is missing the whole Tobago part of the nation, if somebody with access could add it, for this to be accurate and correct. "United" isn't a country either, it's United States of America... 84.249.10.134 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * She was born in the Trinidad part of Trinidad and Tobago. If she was born in the Tobago part, then she would've been "Tobagonian" or however it is. While yes, Trinidad and Tobago are technically the same place but if you was born in the Trinidad part, you're Trinidadian, if you was born in the Tobago part, then you're Tobagonian because Trinidad are Tobago are the same place due to them sharing a name, they are different islands so therefore there is two nationalities. Cynarisoft (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Changing pictures
I am about to change a picture please go to my talk page and i will revert my changes Rile lebz (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Kids
Don’t she got 2 kids now ? 2600:1700:B420:10E0:64B7:AA69:45EF:E245 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * She only has 1 child. Marshalwhite1 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * no 41.116.137.195 (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Feuds too long
CC I generally agree with the content of the feuds, however I think it relies way too much on directly quoting everything. Not just from Minaj but also the women she is feuding with.

I think there can be a way to succinctly summarize the feuds while not basically copypasting what either of the two were saying... can we use some of the referenced articles descriptions of the situation instead? thanks PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was using directly quotes since that is the least controversial way to describe the feuds and less open to disagreement, since a summary can be seen as more biased in one direction or the other. Flabshoe1 (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But I understand your point, I'll see if I can condense the section though without jeopardizing the material. Flabshoe1 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks, six paragaphs (three just from the recent megan feud) is way too much. also her feud with remy ma is missing, maybe you can use some of the article content at No Frauds PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2024
The page does not support her in a favorable light. Please change. thumb 2600:8801:1325:600:B4F6:6688:4B05:CB66 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Decline. Not enough context given. Alexeyevitch (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Feud section requires a significant trim
The section is way too long and filled with a lot of trivial information. Not arguing that the feuds should be remove but rather that the paragraphs should be condensed. Currently the feud section is longer than the artistry section as well as the legacy and achievements sections combined. It's undue negative weight. Instantwatym (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2024
"On January 26, 2024, Minaj teased a diss track against fellow rapper Megan Thee Stallion called "Big Foot" on Instagram live in response to the latter's "Hiss" single, which was followed by a series of tweets concerning the feud by Minaj within the course of hours.[299][300] A few hours prior to the release of "Big Foot", Minaj disclosed that her team was waiting for producer Lil Juju "to clear that beat that [she] had for 6 years." Minaj then suggested that Megan tried to prevent the diss track from coming out despite the fact she hadn't "even heard the song." Minaj tweeted, "It's been [ready] for 2 days. Just was tryna be cool & let her get lil streams. Wasn't gon say anything. But remember how everyone kept my name in their mouth and how I said the next person mention my family gon regret it. Btw, they haven't even heard the song. Who said it's even a 'diss?'"[301] "Big Foot" was officially released on January 28, 2024, at 9 PST after having had a push back to six hours later than initially planned.[302] The track was accompanied by an acapella version, so that, in Minaj's words: "other producers all around the world can make their own beat."[303] Various publications reported that the song was poorly received by critics and fans, who criticized the production, the rap flow, and the shots at Megan for being lacking in quality.[304][305][306] "Big Foot" broke first-day records for the highest solo female rap debut in Apple Music history and the biggest solo female rap debut on YouTube in 2024.[307][308] However, after its strong first-day debut, the song fell off quickly in streams and ultimately debuted at number 23 on the Billboard Hot 100.[309] It extended Minaj's record as the female rapper with the most, and woman with the second-most, top-tens (46) on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, behind Aretha Franklin (52).[310]" should not be where it is placed in the article, and instead should only be within the "Feuds" section. RICHYESBUTAREYOUHAPPY (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Shortened and moved info to its appropriate section. Ben &#124; he/him (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024
Mention of her feud with Megan Thee Stallion being mentioned in the "2022–present: Pink Friday 2 section of the article is perhaps unneeded as it is already mentioned in a more so extended manner in the "feuds" section of the article. As well as this, in the "2020–2021: Beam Me Up Scotty re-release and lawsuit" section of the article, the lawsuit may be better off moved into the "legal issues" section for efficiency. Wikiedits1239 (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The lawsuit is already mentioned in #Legal issues. Removed it from the BMUS subsection in Nicki Minaj. Ben &#124; he/him (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024
Add her to Category:Dirty rap musicians. 12.110.37.88 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. GrayStorm(Talk&#124;Contributions) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2024
"Add to Filmography" Nicki Minaj brilliantly appeared and acted in the 2013 Tyler Perry Movie, Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor, which Perry states is his favorite Tyler Perry movie. Although critics judged the movie harshly, it was a fresh take on a sheltered religious woman's coming of age love story. Temptation has theatrical and literary references to the famous 1983 Gospel stage play, Mama, I Want to Sing! (musical) and the 1997 breakout literary giant What Looks Like Crazy on an Ordinary Day by Pearl Cleague, which is an Oprah Book Club and NY Times Best Selling Novel. Barbbusinessdotcom (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The linked page does not verify that Minaj appeared in this film (or the literary references, or that it is Perry's favorite). Jamedeus (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Hip Hop 50
— Assignment last updated by KING162 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024
Hello,

I would like a new picture of Nicki Minaj in 2024 to be applied to her page, as her fan watching her grow finer and prettier, I definitely want a good and a better picture on her page.

Regards Firstbarb (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Firstbarb: Mention the file in Wikimedia commons. Charliehdb (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The only recent copyright free images are — hako9 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. PianoDan (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)