Talk:Freestyle rap

message: The section on battles mentions that using pre-composed or written in advance lyrics is considered dishonorable, but practically everybody I talk to agrees that public disses for 'writing' are mostly just pro forma, since many or most freestylers come into battles armed with precanned verses.  I can't find a source online to cite this, does anyone have one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.19.5 (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the editors who kept reverting the references to the website as spam, I figure I should chime in. I have no opinion on whether online battling should be added to the article or not, but the insistence of adding that site as an example troubles me. I've seen that website added to several different rap related articles, and it looked a lot like advertising. So, while I have no objections to adding the online battling section, is it really that important to give an example? Why couldn't we just leave the website out? I should also note that I did some digging and, once upon a time, we did have a mention of online batting, which was removed without any explanation . Should we add this back to the article? Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 06:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a democracy, so a vote wouldn't accomplish anything. We go by consensus instead. The link doesn't look appropriate to me. Including more inappropriate links wouldn't help; quite the opposite, it would just attract WP:SPAM. I haven't seen anyone object to an online battling section, it's the example that you are so insistent to include. Leave it out and I won't have a problem with it. It seems that you do not want to even consider the section without including that website, but if you would, you would be met with a lot less resistance (I'll note that I wasn't the only one who previously reverted it as spam). Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, the readers should be able to verify the information per WP:V, but this should be done through reliable sources, not by giving examples. I'll point out another part of the spam guideline, here, it says that you should be careful when giving examples. In an article purely about online battling, then examples might be more appropriate, but since this is about freestyle rap in general, I don't see as to how it is particularly relevant to this article. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 04:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: (edit) I should also note that Wikipedia is not a directory. If readers want to know where to find these sites, they can use Google. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Battles

message: this article should probably be divided into sections, something like; History, Methodology, Great Freestylers, Established Competitions, etc. ReverendG 18:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: I suggested merging freestyle battle into this article. The two seem to be closely intertwined, and both articles are short. Objections? PaulKishimoto 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say its a good idea. Rever
Ok Its cool with me Home Boy  User: Bloveprince
endG 06:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Freestyle Battle 

message: "...non-scripted, non-rehearsed, uncut, and the rawest form of hip-hop."
"...rap uncensored from what is inside."
Phrases like these make for inappropriate voice - In places, the article reads like an attempt at a hip hop manifesto, or perhaps a soliloquy from 8 Mile. 24.84.202.57 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice and style 

message: Just thought the new school of battling should be mentioned in this article.
http://grindtimenow.com/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.165.63 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grindtime/ Jumpoff TV 

message: The same "battle rap" content at the bottom of this "freestyle rap" article is at battle rap, so unless anyone objects, I'll remove it from here and just keep it where it belongs (in the battle rap article). Both articles now have sufficient separate content to warrant being individual articles, which can be built on. 
Also there is not a clear enough link between the two topics to have them under the "freestyle" heading - battle raps can be freestyled, but it is not necessary (as is mentioned in the references), and freestyles, whether they are written or improvised, do not have to be rapped in a battle context (again, as the references show). Crateescape101 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said and well-done. --Junius49 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Crateescape101 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle rap

message: The last few edits with User:Topbookclub have been conflicting, since the user is adding information that has not been verified. The user mentions the following statement without any reliable sources that support his claim:
However, most modern battles are prewritten weeks before the actual battle to give the paying audience in large forums a better show. Prewritten battles were previously frowned upon, and were cause enough to dismiss a participant from a battle. 
I would not contest against the user if the user is able to provide some form of source that actually supports his claims. However, mentioning that he is an "expert" of the topic would fall under original research, which Wikipedia does attempt to avoid. the sentence the user removes is supported by a reliable source, which can be verified through Google Books. It is a published source. Again, just the statement that "I am an expert" does not make it an acceptable reason to make a statement. If the user, or anyone else, is able to provide a reliable source making that support the quoted statement, I will not contest against the edit. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 05:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Sources