Talk:I Can (Nas song)

message: Why are you so insistent the Historical Inaccuracies section stays? You've been watching this article like a hawk to ensure the section remains intact. PROTIP: After 5 people try to remove the section in protest against it and you're the only one defending it, you're probably wrong. It's not necessary to have on this page. TAKE IT OFF DAMNIT. Lulzatron 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It happened again. The NINTH person just tried to take it off. Please respond to my questions before I call for arbitration. Thank you. Lulzatron 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Requests for comment tend to come before arbitration, but there's no need for an RFC even over this lil section.  Please describe your qualm without appealing to original research.--Urthogie 03:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your qualm is that there are at least 9 wikipedians who don't think this section belongs here and you're the only one so far who thinks it needs to be here. I understand that you are partial to this section because you wrote it yourself, but come on, man. 9 - 1. It's about time to throw in the towel. Lulzatron 06:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't wikipedians, they're nas fans who don't understand our policies.  You're the only wikipedian who disagrees, that's why people revert you as if you're a vandal (not just me, but others too).--Urthogie 13:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't answer the question. Why the hell is this so important that you insist on it being stated in here? Give me a good reason and I'll leave it be. Lulzatron 03:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To educate people who believe the songs lyrics.--Urthogie 04:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Beyond words. Do you honestly believe there are people in this world who believe that the Sphinx' nose was shot by Alexander the Great who are over the age of 4? With all due respect, that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Lulzatron 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One example would be the current reference.  Have you ever researched the crazy shit people believe?  I know people who believe this song word for word.--Urthogie 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't prove that, though. I think the section about historical inaccuracies is both non-notable and unencyclopedic. Also, you can't verify that anyone other than Ras believes it and one could even argue that HE isn't notable because he's that bad of a rapper. Lulzatron 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion on his rapping skills are irrelevant.--Urthogie 22:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want to do the RfC or should I? I'll do it tomorrow if you don't. Lulzatron 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urthogie: I'm calling you out. 

message: This is a dispute about whether or not the section "Historical Inaccuracies" should be included in this article. 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perhaps the dumbest thing I've seen on the wikipedia yet.  That section is pure OR, unsupported by the links provided, and should and will be removed.  To whoever supports it; find us a reliable source that shows that Nas was making a literal, historical claim regarding Egyptian history.  Otherwise, you are reading far, far too much original research into this. Tarc 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A source was provided.--Urthogie 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is an interview with someone else, who only mentioned the song in passing.  Source == garbage, as it does not support what you are claiming. Tarc 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A secondary source makes a claim count as verifiable.  Please quote the policy which says people's lyrics can only have meaning quoted by the writers.  Thank you, --Urthogie 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source has nothing relevant to what you are claiming in the article.  That's synthesis at  best, original research at worst. Tarc 12:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it synthesis?  Please explain how using a secondary source to establish what the song is about is OR?  Thank you, --Urthogie 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can field that. I think it goes: "Because the cited source has nothing relevant to what you are claiming in the article." Seriously, why are you even fighting this? It's got "losing battle" written all over it. I can cite as many sources as I want, but that doesn't make it right if the information isn't even there. Please quote the policy that states otherwise. -- Randall00 Talk 23:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tried to wrap my head around the reasoning for the insistence on this text insertion too, but it still makes no sense.  The line is "The song claims that Alexander the Great shot off the Sphinx of Giza's nose", is there really a thought that this is a literal historical claim that must be responded to?  Shall we go over to the Mama Said Knock You Out page and try to prove or disprove whether LL Cool J's mother really did incite him to commit a violent act? Tarc 12:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because he raps as well does not make him an expert on lyrical meanings of other people's songs.  And for pity's sake, the whole damn premise that you're pushing is just plain asinine.  A history text that contained inaccuracies would be deserving of a refutation section, as it'd be reasonable to assume that people are reading the book to learn, y'know, facts.  Making the same assumptions of a rap song is ridiculous, no matter how many bloggers and unreliable sources you find who share this fringe opinion.  Tell ya what; when you can find a reliable source of Nas himself saying "yea, I think ol' Alex tried to shoot dat nose off and I rapped about it", then feel free to put it back in.  Otherwise, it appears that community opinion here is not in your favor. Tarc 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is a mainstream rapper not a reliable secondary source for the meaning of mainstream rap lyrics.  Thank you, --Urthogie 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is abundantly clear that you are not even remotely listening to the opinion of others here, and only intend to vandalize the article. Tarc 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of assuming bad faith and accusing me of vandalism, how about you answer my question here.--Urthogie 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was already answered above.  Typing it out a 2nd time would not be a productive use of my time. Tarc 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote: "Just because he raps as well does not make him an expert on lyrical meanings of other people's songs."  I asked, "why not?"  Please back up that assertion with a quote from policy which would rule out this type of thing.--Urthogie 19:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your question has no relevance to the issue at hand.  The primary problem here is you taking this song's lyrics literally, and feeling that a poor source that only tangentially mentions the song at all is somehow needed to "refute" the lyrics.  Its dumb, and a part of some half-baked point you're trying to make stemming from your revert war / pissing match over at Race and ancient Egypt.  It just isn't going to fly here. Tarc 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're unable to back up your assertion about policy with a quote from policy which would rule out this type of thing?--Urthogie 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with you?  The source you cite only mentions the song in a passing, off-hand manner.  That is NOT suitable to use as a source, and even if it was, it does NOT even support the claim you are trying to insert into this goddamned article.  You are doubly wrong, and this is really getting tiring. Tarc 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  What I'd want to see is this section omitted entirely.  It is a creation of both Urthogie's original research and poor understanding of what this non-WP:RS is actually saying.  There are so many policy avenues to take in opposing the insertion of this "info; it's like a smörgåsbord. Tarc 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on I Can (Nas song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015153533/http://music.ign.com/articles/400/400442p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/400/400442p1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified