This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Donda article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Donda. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Donda at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Donda has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Donda is part of the Kanye West studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 18, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Kanye West credits creating "
an album for God" for being able to collaborate with
Dr. Dre on the upcoming
Jesus Is King Part II? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | Donda stem player was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 4 September 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donda. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I think it's fine to include criticism of Manson and DaBaby's appearance on the album, but let's be honest, The Independent's "review" is hardly a review and shouldn't be considered as such. -- Calidum 14:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Kettleonwater: Since you have introduced the change, per WP:EDITCON, the burden is on you to seek consensus for your edit on the talk page. Your latest edit does at best seem unconstructive and at worst to be in violation of WP:NPOV (you have already expressed bias against the Independent review above and in previous disruptive edits). I also don't understand why you are invoking WP:DEMOCRACY. Please elaborate. Throast ( talk | contribs) 20:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The Independent review does not belong in this article. It is not encyclopedic nor is it notable. Please remove it. 36.232.47.62 ( talk) 10:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
As above in "kettleonwater editing disputes". Need consensus over two things:
The problem with the first source is obviously that it's by default an unreliable source, but even if self-published, the existing source IS verifiable by the listener. For example, comparing the outros of "24", where the track transition to "Remote Control" is now much faster. As stated, Kanye's team have already suggested that more edits to the album are to come. Ignoring the rules here for the meantime will add important information to the article, and as information about the album grows over the next few weeks (since these sources prove post-release edits) there will be significantly better sources for most information already present on the page. As for the review, the writer's reasoning is directly in the headline, and should be mentioned. When mentioned in an above section, the first thing a user did was mention this reasoning. Why can't it be stated outright that Manson's presence was the reason for zero stars? She explicitly states her reasoning in a tweet [4] "I cannot in good conscience award a star rating to an album that knowingly involves a man whom multiple women have accused of rape, torture, sexual assault, psychological and physical abuse, grooming and blackmail".
Please give me your thoughts below. Thanks Kettleonwater ( talk) 10:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Granting zero stars, Roisin O'Connor writing for The Independent, called out the guest appearances of Marilyn Manson and DaBaby as "impossible to forget – or forgive"; Manson for the multiple sexual assault lawsuits he is facing, and DaBaby for his controversial comments about HIV-infected individuals. She specifically called out Manson's presence as "inexcusable" and leaving "a sour taste that no number of good beats, gospel choirs or church organs will cleanse."This is far more neutral and encyclopedic in tone, and also presents her reasoning for giving the album zero stars. Alduin2000 ( talk) 21:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Now that it's been a few days, could we start expanding the article a bit more and giving it some length considering the incredible amount of attention it's been receiving? Just see the daily page views.
Specific recommendations would be - 1) Expanding the lead - add listening parties, viewing numbers for those, add Marilyn Manson, DaBaby Controversy, starting to add some of the records such as apple music #1 in most countries, most streamed on Spotify, 2nd biggest one day stream on Spotify etc
2) Adding some extra info in both the lead and the article - adding that West claimed that Universal released it without his approval, adding the Drake beef
3) Expanding on composition, possibly adding a new section called themes - some analysis of the influences, call out direct influences and his use of newer sounds, mention the organs all over the record, adding lyrical themes from songs such as Jesus Lord, No Child Left Behind, Come to Life etc
4)I would recommend changing the tone of the reviews to polarizing rather than mixed in both the lead and the reception section as I feel that is more suited to a record like this, especially one that is garnering extensive criticism for it's inclusion of Manson. Maybe adding something like "The album received polarized reviews, with some critics praising the production, features and overall themes and messages, placing songs among West's best work. Other critics were more critical of the album, deriding the appearance of (.....) and criticizing the album's run time and calling certain tracks as filler" in the lead maybe.
5) Expand on the coverage this album received such as the Kim Kardashian in a wedding dress, his mother etc and include all this in the themes too.
Cailin Russo (an article I created, how meta)
claimed on Instagram that she wrote and arranged on the album yet there is no credit on any platform showing that. Are we supposed to believe this and include her name? Other people who went to social media about their work showed liner credits.
Trillfendi (
talk) 19:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Sources conflict on the way the last four song titles are spelled.
Apple Music and
Spotify don't capitalize "pt" and don't add any punctuation, whereas
Genius, for example, does. The article currently uses the spelling Genius uses. I would consider Apple Music and Spotify primary sources and therefor preferable in this case (spelling of song titles). What do you think?
Throast (
talk |
contribs) 22:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't know that
MOS:MUSICCAPS covered this. So never mind.
Throast (
talk |
contribs) 23:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The article had the word mixed for the first few days, then polarized, then once it was expanded properly had mixed again, and had polarized until today, where it was changed to mixed again in the lead and reception section.
I feel that we should use polarized, since 'polarized' reviews isn't always an album simultaneously receiving a 0/10 and 10/10. It's an album getting a wide range of reviews, that differ from each other substantially, which is the case for this album. The album (on a 1-5 scale) either received a 3/4 or a 1/2.
More than that, I feel that the word polarized should be used as many of the extremely negative reviews (of which there are many, see the metacritic for this album not just the scores mentioned in the article) were given mainly because of the controversial features. If critic's are criticizing/praising the album for very different things from each other, I think the word polarized should be used.
'Mixed' greatly implies that it was considered an average album by most reviewers, that simply isn't the case, the album got either a pretty positive review (4/5) or a negative/very negative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackner2 ( talk • contribs)
The lead states:
Donda polarized critics upon release. Many critics felt the album was overlong and lacking in coherence, though some deemed it superior to his previous albums Ye (2018) and Jesus Is King (2019).
I haven't read any reviews which have argued that the album was specifically better than Ye and Jesus Is King, and I also haven't seen many articles which are particularly positive. The consensus seems to be more "mixed" than "polarized" (only 5 of the 19 Metacritic reviews have scores above 60, and only 1 review has a score above 75). Am I missing something? To me, the lead should be revised to:
Donda received mixed reviews from critics upon release, with many critics describing the album as overlong and lacking in coherence.
Or something similar. SiliconRed ( talk) 14:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved Donda (album)→ Donda; Donda→ Donda (disambiguation) and DONDA→ Donda (company) per nom. The opposing arguments basically revolve around WP:TOOSOON/ WP:RECENTISM, but the prevailing view is that the album is going to stay primary for years to come (after all, if it somehow turns out not to be true, we can revisit the issue in a year or two). Spikes in pageviews for the company are demonstrated to correlate with the album announcement. No such user ( talk) 09:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
– Even though it's new, I believe the album has received enough traffic and demonstrated it's cultural significance as compared to the other pages on the Donda DAB page to be considered WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also, it appears that DONDA is just a stylization, so it needs to be spelled as "Donda" and therefore needs the disambiguation of "(company)" Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 03:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones ( talk) 15:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Just because it's recent doesn't mean it can't be assessed as a primary topicwas the case, lots of pages would be classified as primary topics when they actually aren't. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 21:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative.Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 23:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.The page statistics show that the album is primary in terms of usage by a factor of 4. The third important aspect of disambiguation (from the lead of WP:DAB) is
Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be.Having a reader go through a DAB page when it is more than 80% likely that they are searching for a single article is unnecessary. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 17:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
° I agree aswell, it should be moved to avoid confusion. SomeWhatLife ( talk) 17:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Since this is proving to be a contentious issue, I'm starting this discussion here. I've been arguing that the table caption "Donda track listing" under the "Track listing" section is redundant and should therefor be left empty. The section header right above the table says "Track listing", making it clear to the reader that a track list of the album the article is about will follow. Per
MOS:TABLECAPTION, a table caption is recommended
, not mandatory. In cases where multiple versions of an album with differing track lists have been released, table captions are useful to discern between those versions. In this case however, only one version exists, rendering a caption redundant. In my opinion, this is a case of common sense over "it's been done on other articles too". What am I missing?
Tagging TheAmazingPeanuts, since we've already had this discussion. Throast ( talk | contribs) 21:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
MOS:ACCESS is a policy, and MOS:TABLECAPTION is an extension of that policy.I was just following the guidelines like any other editor should, I kinda think this have something to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT then anything else. I personally think this discussion should take place at WT:ALBUM instead of here. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 22:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @ Binksternet, Kyle Peake, Walter Görlitz, Zmbro, and JG66: in this discussion. I like to hear other editors opinion about the table caption. Maybe I be wrong about it. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I proposed changing the accessibility tutorial... See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Wrong_for_11_years. I think in the great majority of cases, context is already very clear what the table contains. I proposed that the tutorial offer the table "caption" as an option rather than a requirement. Binksternet ( talk) 17:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a lack of certainty whether the section should be titled as above or controversies, I would like to point out how Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice suggests using the title of controversy when there is any in general surrounding an album. -- K. Peake 19:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This section could use some trimming, particularly in its elaboration on speculative and gossip-y items, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. In fact, I preferred the location of the reviewer complaints in briefer form in the reception section. It feels like we are pandering to the twit mob, which also feels like a fringe view ( WP:UNDUE). Piotr Jr. ( talk) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of O'Connor in the reception section, specifically the lament of Manson's appearance without a defined reason, lacks coherence. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The word controversy carries the connotation of being public. I don't consider an album review published in The Independent to be public in the way that social media lynch mobs are, which involve people as a whole (to some extent). So I believe we can differentiate the two and restore the earlier forms of O'Connor and Love's reviews. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 22:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think this section is unnecessary, in terms of layout, organization of information. You can spread most of these items across the other sections where they are more closely related, such as the listening event backlash (in listening event section), the aforementioned critical reviews (in reviews section), the (lord help me) Peppa Pig review "story" (again in reviews section). Because in the current form, they are merely tangentially related and do not cohere into a well-written section. Additionally, a controversy is a disagreement that is particularly prolonged and heated. None of these purported disagreements have another side publicly voicing itself. It reads as a one-sided overblown backlash. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The most controversial thing mentioned in this article is not even in this section: West's claim of disapproving the release, a claim the label then publicly denounced. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 23:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You have phrases like "appeared to," "seemingly," "a source," "speculated," "confusion", all vague, all flimsy, if not smoke and mirrors. And you repeatedly have WP:CITEBOMB, as if to compensate for the fact that these ideas lack heft or inherent significance. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Manson's ex partner has no strong relationship to this article. And as a whole, it all reads very shallow. There is no escaping that. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
O Connor lacks coherence in the reviews section since you discuss her objecting to Manson without saying why until she appears again two sections down. I see what you're trying to do. I still think it's a bad execution and would be better off splitting apart. There is too much detail given to these minor backlashes, no matter how much cheap journalism covers it. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL discourages rumors, and it cautions using even well-sourced speculative information to avoid creating a bias. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
What would justify or give substance to this section is a reputable source that outlines and summarizes the topic. And I've found a few, and believe you should consider revising the section around them as the basis, the meat-and-bones of the section: Lang in Time magazine, "Kanye West's Controversial Donda Is Finally Out. Here's What You Need to Know", and Romano in Vox, "Donda: The hype, the controversy, the music, the Kanye of it all, explained". Some of the current sources are tabloid-like, like People and Buzzfeed. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, both People and Buzzfeed appear on WP:RSP with at least some cautionary note about contentious claims. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The Peppa Pig story doesn't fit anywhere because it's trivia. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
RSP notes that editors have recommended exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after [2018]. Quite frankly, the state of journalism has been on the decline, and we as editors of this grand attempt at an evolving online popular encyclopedia have a right to exercise editorial judgment for the betterment of an article. And the ideas in your response undermine the seriousness of that effort, with all due respect. I suggest you stick to the best sources available on this article's topic, such as extensive news and journalistic articles, and not tidbit social-media briefs from historically tabloid mags. Time and Vox are of the more historically reputable news-journalism sources, and I've offered pieces that really go in depth, far more than the current sources seem to do, on this topic. See what they have to say, and use them as your new template and skeleton for this section. Start from scratch with them. That is what I recommend. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 02:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I find the defense of a fictitious Twitter account insulting to the integrity of the article. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
There is still WP:CITECLUTTER, seemingly synthesized sentences, etc. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no reason given as to why anyone is "confused," making it pointless to readers. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 14:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Just because something was reported, even made verifiable, doesn't make it acceptable for inclusion here. ( WP:VNOT) That is where you haven't exercised editorial judgment, instead indulging in these cheap stories. Do not feel insulted. I am just trying to get these points across to you to encouraging better decisions in the article. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 14:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Then why are editors pinging me, asking for my opinion? Piotr Jr. ( talk) 14:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
We are not obligated to mention popular culture trivia merely because it is verifiable. There must be some depth to the discussion ( MOS:CULTURALREFS). And, using the powers of my "personal opinion," I find none in what is currently cited here about a cartoon character Twitter account "trolling" this album. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 14:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
If I may not be completely with the times, then perhaps you are not entirely with the standards of an encyclopedia. In all fairness. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the cartoon Pig story can be reduced to one or two sentences and be relegated to a footnote alongside the actual Pitchfork review. Otherwise, I don't see how it fits the definition of a controversy or an encyclopedic threshold of notability, even a common sense threshold. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It's just not interesting or engaging enough, other than the probability that a reader would wonder why this is even mentioned or what does it mean for a social-media account representing a cartoon television character to be "bragging" (I guess?) as if in competition with an artist (West) that the character has no previously defined relationship to ( WP:ASTONISH). Otherwise, nothing really goes on that seems readily apparent to be of consequence to a reader's understanding of this article's topic, Donda. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:AUDIENCE is a key guideline: "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. Avoid using jargon whenever possible. ... Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? ... Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about?" "trolling" is jargon; a cartoon pig with no connection to Donda or its purported controversies makes little to no sense to a layperson. "When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article." Does any source explain who the person is who manages the Twitter account of a cartoon pig and what their reason was for "trolling"? Does any source explain how this is "trolling" and why it is significant to understanding Donda? Please ask yourselves that before presuming this information ought to be normalized, simply by virtue of its existence in some paltry news briefs from a handful of otherwise reliable sources, in an article that aims for encyclopedic practices and values. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 16:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:EDITDISC: "Common sense and Wikipedia policy dictates that editors must practice discretion regarding the proper inclusion of relevant and well-sourced content." Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
In response to Kyle's recent edit summary, I would still defend the inclusion of Vox (in place of sources like People and the miniscule NBC News brief) because it represents a broad overview that essentializes information rather than focuses on one particular detail or aspect. It, in my mind, represents a better source on the topic of "controversy", particularly in the aspect of proportionality and weight; it is much larger, which translates to more information to add from to this article, as opposed to fleshing out a paragraph (from a few news briefs) that is disproportionate to the coverage given to an aspect (i.e. the cartoon pig) from the briefs that are currently cited to construct that paragraph. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
More extensive news articles should be given preference to meager news briefs. More editorial oversight is usually paid to them, more breadth and focus as well. Just like an encyclopedic article itself, extensive features and reports are published to represent a leading coverage or source on the topic. News briefs, especially in the on-demand internet culture of today, often have spelling errors in headlines and represent immediate reactions to on-going events and occurances; they do not represent the same care and consideration that goes into more final works. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
And that is where I have been coming from. I am not here to denigrate any editor for the sake of it, and I hope you can appreciate these views and the guidelines I've attached to them. Thanks. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, I did read through the refs again and have changed to the publications seeing a possibility that he collaborated with them as a response to cancel culture. This is fully acceptable since it is not only the manner that they are indicating at, but it is also the opinions of publications not individuals like fans so what they see as possibility is notable. I will try to look at the widespread part later on after work. -- K. Peake 09:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 16:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
None of Donda's "important" features (e.g., Jay-Z on "Jail") are explicitly listed as featured artists/vocals in the official liner notes; (almost) every other contribution is listed, e.g., additional vocalists, engineers, or instrumentalists. The "important" features are only acknowledged with writing credits. To make things more confusing, the liner notes of Donda's only official single, "Hurricane", list Kanye West and The Weeknd as main artists and Lil Baby as featured artist (i.e., Kanye West and The Weeknd featuring Lil Baby). Not to mention that Donda's official liner notes could change in the future, which is not at all uncommon for Kanye West albums of the last years.
How should this be reflected in a Track listing subcategory, and how can we balance the officially available information with providing useful information to readers?
This is obviously something to discuss, but here are some suggestion on my behalf:
Any other thoughts? - Ragnarulv ( talk | contribs)
In my opinion, the listening events section should be split into sub-sections (i.e. first, second, third). This way the paragraphs can be separated thoroughly (as it stands each para is more than ten sentences long). – zmbro ( talk) 17:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Going along with this, the background and recording section should be split into numerous sub-sections (i.e. early work, initial work, etc.) Or even split 'background' and 'recording' into two separate sections, with sub-sections from there. Having everything at once looks extremely unorganized, especially with how large this article is growing. – zmbro ( talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the paragraph on the Peppa Pig tweets under the "controversies" section, I really don't think this amounts to a controversy, particularly because it was entirely one-sided. It was a line of humorous tweets that got picked up by a few, albeit reputable, tabloids. It's a trivial, isolated bit of information that doesn't give the reader any valuable insight. If it even belongs in this article at all, it doesn't belong in the "controversies" section in my opinion. What do you think? Throast ( talk | contribs) 17:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Kudos to whoever took time out of their day to write all of that but I think the subsections on the three listening events, particularly on the second and third, are way too detailed. In my opinion, all the detailed descriptions of how exactly the performances unfolded (what people wore, ticket prices, etc) can be scrapped. What do you think? Throast ( talk | contribs) 15:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The listening event sold out Mercedes-Benz Stadium's 2021 capacity of 42,000, alongside setting a record for the biggest Apple Music livestream globally, with over 3.3 million viewers.
It suprassed West's own record for the most popular live stream on Apple Msic, drawing in 5.4 million viewers.
It started at 6:30 p.m. and finished at 8:00 p.m.
Though no cell phones or large bags were permitted at the event, clips of the event surfaced online showing West hunched over his laptop, wearing gloves and a ski mask over his head that left only his eyes visible.
During the event, West was joined by four pianists from a public music school of Kaufman Music Center, with whom he took a picture that was shared to the center's Instagram account.
It was set to start at 8 p.m. on the date, with tickets going on sale at the same time as the announcement for either $50 or $20.
commencing with the music playing as West emerged from a tunnel. The rapper then walked to the center of the stadium, where he mainly stood still and was illuminated by a shape-shifting spotlight. The spotlight focused on West throughout and he fell to his knees on occasions during the event, demonstrating a prayer-like posture.
It was scheduled to start at 9 p.m. on the date, while tickets were made available two days after the confirmation for prices between $30 and $75.
Livestreaming of the event later began at 9:30 p.m., with Demna Gvasalia handling the creative direction and Niklas Bildstein Zaar serving as the artistic director.
West was positioned in the center throughout, wearing an all-black outfit and a mask. He appeared inside a square of light, being encircled by dozens of dancers that were also dressed in black clothing. West paced around, danced, and prayed during the event, as well as performing push-ups at points. The event ended with him being elevated to the ceiling of Mercedes-Benz Stadium by harness, in a manner reminiscent of ascending to heaven.
The event was slated to begin at 9 p.m., while tickets went on sales two days after the announcement at prices ranging from $150 to $300.
Kanye West appeared by coming out from the replica home while wearing an all-black outfit, accompanied by footage and photo collages of Donda. West was joined on the porch of the home by Marilyn Manson and DaBaby; they were surrounded by backup dancers that wore bulletproof vests with the name Donda on. Shortly after the beginning of the event, West's setting devolved into a crime scene. For the conclusion, West came out of the home wearing a stunt suit after having been set on fire inside earlier and was quickly extinguished, unmasking himself to reunite with Kardashian.
In Composition section, someone wrote that the album took inspiration from Heartbreak on a Full Moon. Does anyone else see that from the source cited? I do not see it. 2600:1700:2171:670:F983:8A90:3AD:F2C2 ( talk) 22:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I have again reverted disruptive edits that update a certification and, in the process, delete a reference definition used elsewhere in the article. When making an update, it's important to comprehensively update the article and change not only the tables but the prose. Im this case, the update deletes a certification reference that's used within the prose; it replaces the reference with a new one that supports only the table but not the prose. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Donda article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Donda. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Donda at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Donda has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Donda is part of the Kanye West studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 18, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Kanye West credits creating "
an album for God" for being able to collaborate with
Dr. Dre on the upcoming
Jesus Is King Part II? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | Donda stem player was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 4 September 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donda. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I think it's fine to include criticism of Manson and DaBaby's appearance on the album, but let's be honest, The Independent's "review" is hardly a review and shouldn't be considered as such. -- Calidum 14:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Kettleonwater: Since you have introduced the change, per WP:EDITCON, the burden is on you to seek consensus for your edit on the talk page. Your latest edit does at best seem unconstructive and at worst to be in violation of WP:NPOV (you have already expressed bias against the Independent review above and in previous disruptive edits). I also don't understand why you are invoking WP:DEMOCRACY. Please elaborate. Throast ( talk | contribs) 20:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The Independent review does not belong in this article. It is not encyclopedic nor is it notable. Please remove it. 36.232.47.62 ( talk) 10:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
As above in "kettleonwater editing disputes". Need consensus over two things:
The problem with the first source is obviously that it's by default an unreliable source, but even if self-published, the existing source IS verifiable by the listener. For example, comparing the outros of "24", where the track transition to "Remote Control" is now much faster. As stated, Kanye's team have already suggested that more edits to the album are to come. Ignoring the rules here for the meantime will add important information to the article, and as information about the album grows over the next few weeks (since these sources prove post-release edits) there will be significantly better sources for most information already present on the page. As for the review, the writer's reasoning is directly in the headline, and should be mentioned. When mentioned in an above section, the first thing a user did was mention this reasoning. Why can't it be stated outright that Manson's presence was the reason for zero stars? She explicitly states her reasoning in a tweet [4] "I cannot in good conscience award a star rating to an album that knowingly involves a man whom multiple women have accused of rape, torture, sexual assault, psychological and physical abuse, grooming and blackmail".
Please give me your thoughts below. Thanks Kettleonwater ( talk) 10:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Granting zero stars, Roisin O'Connor writing for The Independent, called out the guest appearances of Marilyn Manson and DaBaby as "impossible to forget – or forgive"; Manson for the multiple sexual assault lawsuits he is facing, and DaBaby for his controversial comments about HIV-infected individuals. She specifically called out Manson's presence as "inexcusable" and leaving "a sour taste that no number of good beats, gospel choirs or church organs will cleanse."This is far more neutral and encyclopedic in tone, and also presents her reasoning for giving the album zero stars. Alduin2000 ( talk) 21:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Now that it's been a few days, could we start expanding the article a bit more and giving it some length considering the incredible amount of attention it's been receiving? Just see the daily page views.
Specific recommendations would be - 1) Expanding the lead - add listening parties, viewing numbers for those, add Marilyn Manson, DaBaby Controversy, starting to add some of the records such as apple music #1 in most countries, most streamed on Spotify, 2nd biggest one day stream on Spotify etc
2) Adding some extra info in both the lead and the article - adding that West claimed that Universal released it without his approval, adding the Drake beef
3) Expanding on composition, possibly adding a new section called themes - some analysis of the influences, call out direct influences and his use of newer sounds, mention the organs all over the record, adding lyrical themes from songs such as Jesus Lord, No Child Left Behind, Come to Life etc
4)I would recommend changing the tone of the reviews to polarizing rather than mixed in both the lead and the reception section as I feel that is more suited to a record like this, especially one that is garnering extensive criticism for it's inclusion of Manson. Maybe adding something like "The album received polarized reviews, with some critics praising the production, features and overall themes and messages, placing songs among West's best work. Other critics were more critical of the album, deriding the appearance of (.....) and criticizing the album's run time and calling certain tracks as filler" in the lead maybe.
5) Expand on the coverage this album received such as the Kim Kardashian in a wedding dress, his mother etc and include all this in the themes too.
Cailin Russo (an article I created, how meta)
claimed on Instagram that she wrote and arranged on the album yet there is no credit on any platform showing that. Are we supposed to believe this and include her name? Other people who went to social media about their work showed liner credits.
Trillfendi (
talk) 19:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Sources conflict on the way the last four song titles are spelled.
Apple Music and
Spotify don't capitalize "pt" and don't add any punctuation, whereas
Genius, for example, does. The article currently uses the spelling Genius uses. I would consider Apple Music and Spotify primary sources and therefor preferable in this case (spelling of song titles). What do you think?
Throast (
talk |
contribs) 22:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't know that
MOS:MUSICCAPS covered this. So never mind.
Throast (
talk |
contribs) 23:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The article had the word mixed for the first few days, then polarized, then once it was expanded properly had mixed again, and had polarized until today, where it was changed to mixed again in the lead and reception section.
I feel that we should use polarized, since 'polarized' reviews isn't always an album simultaneously receiving a 0/10 and 10/10. It's an album getting a wide range of reviews, that differ from each other substantially, which is the case for this album. The album (on a 1-5 scale) either received a 3/4 or a 1/2.
More than that, I feel that the word polarized should be used as many of the extremely negative reviews (of which there are many, see the metacritic for this album not just the scores mentioned in the article) were given mainly because of the controversial features. If critic's are criticizing/praising the album for very different things from each other, I think the word polarized should be used.
'Mixed' greatly implies that it was considered an average album by most reviewers, that simply isn't the case, the album got either a pretty positive review (4/5) or a negative/very negative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackner2 ( talk • contribs)
The lead states:
Donda polarized critics upon release. Many critics felt the album was overlong and lacking in coherence, though some deemed it superior to his previous albums Ye (2018) and Jesus Is King (2019).
I haven't read any reviews which have argued that the album was specifically better than Ye and Jesus Is King, and I also haven't seen many articles which are particularly positive. The consensus seems to be more "mixed" than "polarized" (only 5 of the 19 Metacritic reviews have scores above 60, and only 1 review has a score above 75). Am I missing something? To me, the lead should be revised to:
Donda received mixed reviews from critics upon release, with many critics describing the album as overlong and lacking in coherence.
Or something similar. SiliconRed ( talk) 14:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved Donda (album)→ Donda; Donda→ Donda (disambiguation) and DONDA→ Donda (company) per nom. The opposing arguments basically revolve around WP:TOOSOON/ WP:RECENTISM, but the prevailing view is that the album is going to stay primary for years to come (after all, if it somehow turns out not to be true, we can revisit the issue in a year or two). Spikes in pageviews for the company are demonstrated to correlate with the album announcement. No such user ( talk) 09:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
– Even though it's new, I believe the album has received enough traffic and demonstrated it's cultural significance as compared to the other pages on the Donda DAB page to be considered WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also, it appears that DONDA is just a stylization, so it needs to be spelled as "Donda" and therefore needs the disambiguation of "(company)" Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 03:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones ( talk) 15:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Just because it's recent doesn't mean it can't be assessed as a primary topicwas the case, lots of pages would be classified as primary topics when they actually aren't. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 21:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative.Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 23:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.The page statistics show that the album is primary in terms of usage by a factor of 4. The third important aspect of disambiguation (from the lead of WP:DAB) is
Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be.Having a reader go through a DAB page when it is more than 80% likely that they are searching for a single article is unnecessary. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 17:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
° I agree aswell, it should be moved to avoid confusion. SomeWhatLife ( talk) 17:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Since this is proving to be a contentious issue, I'm starting this discussion here. I've been arguing that the table caption "Donda track listing" under the "Track listing" section is redundant and should therefor be left empty. The section header right above the table says "Track listing", making it clear to the reader that a track list of the album the article is about will follow. Per
MOS:TABLECAPTION, a table caption is recommended
, not mandatory. In cases where multiple versions of an album with differing track lists have been released, table captions are useful to discern between those versions. In this case however, only one version exists, rendering a caption redundant. In my opinion, this is a case of common sense over "it's been done on other articles too". What am I missing?
Tagging TheAmazingPeanuts, since we've already had this discussion. Throast ( talk | contribs) 21:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
MOS:ACCESS is a policy, and MOS:TABLECAPTION is an extension of that policy.I was just following the guidelines like any other editor should, I kinda think this have something to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT then anything else. I personally think this discussion should take place at WT:ALBUM instead of here. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 22:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @ Binksternet, Kyle Peake, Walter Görlitz, Zmbro, and JG66: in this discussion. I like to hear other editors opinion about the table caption. Maybe I be wrong about it. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I proposed changing the accessibility tutorial... See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Wrong_for_11_years. I think in the great majority of cases, context is already very clear what the table contains. I proposed that the tutorial offer the table "caption" as an option rather than a requirement. Binksternet ( talk) 17:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a lack of certainty whether the section should be titled as above or controversies, I would like to point out how Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice suggests using the title of controversy when there is any in general surrounding an album. -- K. Peake 19:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This section could use some trimming, particularly in its elaboration on speculative and gossip-y items, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. In fact, I preferred the location of the reviewer complaints in briefer form in the reception section. It feels like we are pandering to the twit mob, which also feels like a fringe view ( WP:UNDUE). Piotr Jr. ( talk) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of O'Connor in the reception section, specifically the lament of Manson's appearance without a defined reason, lacks coherence. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The word controversy carries the connotation of being public. I don't consider an album review published in The Independent to be public in the way that social media lynch mobs are, which involve people as a whole (to some extent). So I believe we can differentiate the two and restore the earlier forms of O'Connor and Love's reviews. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 22:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think this section is unnecessary, in terms of layout, organization of information. You can spread most of these items across the other sections where they are more closely related, such as the listening event backlash (in listening event section), the aforementioned critical reviews (in reviews section), the (lord help me) Peppa Pig review "story" (again in reviews section). Because in the current form, they are merely tangentially related and do not cohere into a well-written section. Additionally, a controversy is a disagreement that is particularly prolonged and heated. None of these purported disagreements have another side publicly voicing itself. It reads as a one-sided overblown backlash. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The most controversial thing mentioned in this article is not even in this section: West's claim of disapproving the release, a claim the label then publicly denounced. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 23:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You have phrases like "appeared to," "seemingly," "a source," "speculated," "confusion", all vague, all flimsy, if not smoke and mirrors. And you repeatedly have WP:CITEBOMB, as if to compensate for the fact that these ideas lack heft or inherent significance. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Manson's ex partner has no strong relationship to this article. And as a whole, it all reads very shallow. There is no escaping that. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
O Connor lacks coherence in the reviews section since you discuss her objecting to Manson without saying why until she appears again two sections down. I see what you're trying to do. I still think it's a bad execution and would be better off splitting apart. There is too much detail given to these minor backlashes, no matter how much cheap journalism covers it. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL discourages rumors, and it cautions using even well-sourced speculative information to avoid creating a bias. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
What would justify or give substance to this section is a reputable source that outlines and summarizes the topic. And I've found a few, and believe you should consider revising the section around them as the basis, the meat-and-bones of the section: Lang in Time magazine, "Kanye West's Controversial Donda Is Finally Out. Here's What You Need to Know", and Romano in Vox, "Donda: The hype, the controversy, the music, the Kanye of it all, explained". Some of the current sources are tabloid-like, like People and Buzzfeed. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, both People and Buzzfeed appear on WP:RSP with at least some cautionary note about contentious claims. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The Peppa Pig story doesn't fit anywhere because it's trivia. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
RSP notes that editors have recommended exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after [2018]. Quite frankly, the state of journalism has been on the decline, and we as editors of this grand attempt at an evolving online popular encyclopedia have a right to exercise editorial judgment for the betterment of an article. And the ideas in your response undermine the seriousness of that effort, with all due respect. I suggest you stick to the best sources available on this article's topic, such as extensive news and journalistic articles, and not tidbit social-media briefs from historically tabloid mags. Time and Vox are of the more historically reputable news-journalism sources, and I've offered pieces that really go in depth, far more than the current sources seem to do, on this topic. See what they have to say, and use them as your new template and skeleton for this section. Start from scratch with them. That is what I recommend. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 02:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I find the defense of a fictitious Twitter account insulting to the integrity of the article. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
There is still WP:CITECLUTTER, seemingly synthesized sentences, etc. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 13:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no reason given as to why anyone is "confused," making it pointless to readers. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 14:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Just because something was reported, even made verifiable, doesn't make it acceptable for inclusion here. ( WP:VNOT) That is where you haven't exercised editorial judgment, instead indulging in these cheap stories. Do not feel insulted. I am just trying to get these points across to you to encouraging better decisions in the article. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 14:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Then why are editors pinging me, asking for my opinion? Piotr Jr. ( talk) 14:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
We are not obligated to mention popular culture trivia merely because it is verifiable. There must be some depth to the discussion ( MOS:CULTURALREFS). And, using the powers of my "personal opinion," I find none in what is currently cited here about a cartoon character Twitter account "trolling" this album. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 14:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
If I may not be completely with the times, then perhaps you are not entirely with the standards of an encyclopedia. In all fairness. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the cartoon Pig story can be reduced to one or two sentences and be relegated to a footnote alongside the actual Pitchfork review. Otherwise, I don't see how it fits the definition of a controversy or an encyclopedic threshold of notability, even a common sense threshold. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It's just not interesting or engaging enough, other than the probability that a reader would wonder why this is even mentioned or what does it mean for a social-media account representing a cartoon television character to be "bragging" (I guess?) as if in competition with an artist (West) that the character has no previously defined relationship to ( WP:ASTONISH). Otherwise, nothing really goes on that seems readily apparent to be of consequence to a reader's understanding of this article's topic, Donda. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:AUDIENCE is a key guideline: "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. Avoid using jargon whenever possible. ... Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? ... Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about?" "trolling" is jargon; a cartoon pig with no connection to Donda or its purported controversies makes little to no sense to a layperson. "When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article." Does any source explain who the person is who manages the Twitter account of a cartoon pig and what their reason was for "trolling"? Does any source explain how this is "trolling" and why it is significant to understanding Donda? Please ask yourselves that before presuming this information ought to be normalized, simply by virtue of its existence in some paltry news briefs from a handful of otherwise reliable sources, in an article that aims for encyclopedic practices and values. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 16:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:EDITDISC: "Common sense and Wikipedia policy dictates that editors must practice discretion regarding the proper inclusion of relevant and well-sourced content." Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
In response to Kyle's recent edit summary, I would still defend the inclusion of Vox (in place of sources like People and the miniscule NBC News brief) because it represents a broad overview that essentializes information rather than focuses on one particular detail or aspect. It, in my mind, represents a better source on the topic of "controversy", particularly in the aspect of proportionality and weight; it is much larger, which translates to more information to add from to this article, as opposed to fleshing out a paragraph (from a few news briefs) that is disproportionate to the coverage given to an aspect (i.e. the cartoon pig) from the briefs that are currently cited to construct that paragraph. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
More extensive news articles should be given preference to meager news briefs. More editorial oversight is usually paid to them, more breadth and focus as well. Just like an encyclopedic article itself, extensive features and reports are published to represent a leading coverage or source on the topic. News briefs, especially in the on-demand internet culture of today, often have spelling errors in headlines and represent immediate reactions to on-going events and occurances; they do not represent the same care and consideration that goes into more final works. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
And that is where I have been coming from. I am not here to denigrate any editor for the sake of it, and I hope you can appreciate these views and the guidelines I've attached to them. Thanks. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 17:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, I did read through the refs again and have changed to the publications seeing a possibility that he collaborated with them as a response to cancel culture. This is fully acceptable since it is not only the manner that they are indicating at, but it is also the opinions of publications not individuals like fans so what they see as possibility is notable. I will try to look at the widespread part later on after work. -- K. Peake 09:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Piotr Jr. ( talk) 16:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
None of Donda's "important" features (e.g., Jay-Z on "Jail") are explicitly listed as featured artists/vocals in the official liner notes; (almost) every other contribution is listed, e.g., additional vocalists, engineers, or instrumentalists. The "important" features are only acknowledged with writing credits. To make things more confusing, the liner notes of Donda's only official single, "Hurricane", list Kanye West and The Weeknd as main artists and Lil Baby as featured artist (i.e., Kanye West and The Weeknd featuring Lil Baby). Not to mention that Donda's official liner notes could change in the future, which is not at all uncommon for Kanye West albums of the last years.
How should this be reflected in a Track listing subcategory, and how can we balance the officially available information with providing useful information to readers?
This is obviously something to discuss, but here are some suggestion on my behalf:
Any other thoughts? - Ragnarulv ( talk | contribs)
In my opinion, the listening events section should be split into sub-sections (i.e. first, second, third). This way the paragraphs can be separated thoroughly (as it stands each para is more than ten sentences long). – zmbro ( talk) 17:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Going along with this, the background and recording section should be split into numerous sub-sections (i.e. early work, initial work, etc.) Or even split 'background' and 'recording' into two separate sections, with sub-sections from there. Having everything at once looks extremely unorganized, especially with how large this article is growing. – zmbro ( talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the paragraph on the Peppa Pig tweets under the "controversies" section, I really don't think this amounts to a controversy, particularly because it was entirely one-sided. It was a line of humorous tweets that got picked up by a few, albeit reputable, tabloids. It's a trivial, isolated bit of information that doesn't give the reader any valuable insight. If it even belongs in this article at all, it doesn't belong in the "controversies" section in my opinion. What do you think? Throast ( talk | contribs) 17:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Kudos to whoever took time out of their day to write all of that but I think the subsections on the three listening events, particularly on the second and third, are way too detailed. In my opinion, all the detailed descriptions of how exactly the performances unfolded (what people wore, ticket prices, etc) can be scrapped. What do you think? Throast ( talk | contribs) 15:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The listening event sold out Mercedes-Benz Stadium's 2021 capacity of 42,000, alongside setting a record for the biggest Apple Music livestream globally, with over 3.3 million viewers.
It suprassed West's own record for the most popular live stream on Apple Msic, drawing in 5.4 million viewers.
It started at 6:30 p.m. and finished at 8:00 p.m.
Though no cell phones or large bags were permitted at the event, clips of the event surfaced online showing West hunched over his laptop, wearing gloves and a ski mask over his head that left only his eyes visible.
During the event, West was joined by four pianists from a public music school of Kaufman Music Center, with whom he took a picture that was shared to the center's Instagram account.
It was set to start at 8 p.m. on the date, with tickets going on sale at the same time as the announcement for either $50 or $20.
commencing with the music playing as West emerged from a tunnel. The rapper then walked to the center of the stadium, where he mainly stood still and was illuminated by a shape-shifting spotlight. The spotlight focused on West throughout and he fell to his knees on occasions during the event, demonstrating a prayer-like posture.
It was scheduled to start at 9 p.m. on the date, while tickets were made available two days after the confirmation for prices between $30 and $75.
Livestreaming of the event later began at 9:30 p.m., with Demna Gvasalia handling the creative direction and Niklas Bildstein Zaar serving as the artistic director.
West was positioned in the center throughout, wearing an all-black outfit and a mask. He appeared inside a square of light, being encircled by dozens of dancers that were also dressed in black clothing. West paced around, danced, and prayed during the event, as well as performing push-ups at points. The event ended with him being elevated to the ceiling of Mercedes-Benz Stadium by harness, in a manner reminiscent of ascending to heaven.
The event was slated to begin at 9 p.m., while tickets went on sales two days after the announcement at prices ranging from $150 to $300.
Kanye West appeared by coming out from the replica home while wearing an all-black outfit, accompanied by footage and photo collages of Donda. West was joined on the porch of the home by Marilyn Manson and DaBaby; they were surrounded by backup dancers that wore bulletproof vests with the name Donda on. Shortly after the beginning of the event, West's setting devolved into a crime scene. For the conclusion, West came out of the home wearing a stunt suit after having been set on fire inside earlier and was quickly extinguished, unmasking himself to reunite with Kardashian.
In Composition section, someone wrote that the album took inspiration from Heartbreak on a Full Moon. Does anyone else see that from the source cited? I do not see it. 2600:1700:2171:670:F983:8A90:3AD:F2C2 ( talk) 22:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I have again reverted disruptive edits that update a certification and, in the process, delete a reference definition used elsewhere in the article. When making an update, it's important to comprehensively update the article and change not only the tables but the prose. Im this case, the update deletes a certification reference that's used within the prose; it replaces the reference with a new one that supports only the table but not the prose. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)