Jump to content

Talk:Tupac Shakur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleTupac Shakur was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 31, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 17, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 24, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 29, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 7, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
November 21, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 16, 2021.
Current status: Delisted good article



RfC roles to include in the lead sentence

[edit]

There is an ongoing dispute about what roles should appear in the lead sentence of the article on Tupac Shakur. Possibilities include (in alphabetical order):

  • Activist
  • Actor
  • Poet
  • Rapper
  • Record producer
  • Songwriter

The relevant policies are MOS:FIRSTBIO and MOS:ROLEBIO. A previous RfC on the same topic was held in 2017, where the consensus was "rapper and actor". Please comment on what roles should be included in the lead sentence, and why. Thank you, --LK (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • activist, rapper, and songwriter: Because the page describes his activism, his cultural influence as a rapper, and his skill as a songwriter. To be consistent with the page, I would include these three. Pier1999 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think songwriter should be taken out of the lead and it should say "rapper, activist, poet" and maybe "actor" but I don't care. We should cut out songwriter and add poet 75.148.212.155 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I'm the ip 75.148.212.155. I forgot to log in lol HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows he's a songwriter because the lead already says he made music. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far, per MOS:ROLEBIO I would object to actor. 6 major roles doesn't warrant inclusion in the lede. The rest, I might come back to with an opinion. Knitsey (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I mean he published dozens and dozens of poems so it should say poet in the lead, definitely rapper, and since the lead mentions how he was an activist, it should say "Tupac Shakur was an American rapper, activist, and poet. I don't know why pier1999 wants songwriter in the lead. Everyone knows he's a songwriter, and I don't really care if it says actor in the lead, he only played in a few movies HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poet is one I'm not sure about. 300+ existing references so I'm struggling to find reference to his poetry. Any suggestions? Knitsey (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tupac wrote poems like "starry night" "if I fail" "can u c the pride in the panther" "the rose that grew from the concrete" and "family tree". These are only some of his poems, recently posted on the official Tupac Shakur YouTube channel. I remember I had to study lots of Tupac's poems in school growing up, and there's reliable sources in this wiki article that mention that he's a poet HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reliable source in this article that says hes a poet. I found one right away https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tupac-shakur-posthumously-receives-star-on-hollywood-walk-of-fame/ HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for that, I appreciate it. The article does say poet but hasn't talked about his poetry at all in the article. Knitsey (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • musician and actor: "Musician" is a broad term that covers everything from songwriting to rapping to singing to production to playing an instrument to clapping to a beat in the studio. His film roles are much more covered than his poetry. His activism, like that of many celebrities, is exaggerated (his mother was the actual activist) and undercut by his criminal activity. Caro7200 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @caro7200 Even if his acting is more covered then poetry, he still wrote and published more poems. Him as a poet is more relevant. His activism isn't exaggerated in his music and speeches, he literally addresses political issues and the marginalization of other african Americans. And I bet no one else agrees to replace rapper, no one's going to agree with you on that. All of Tupac's songs are literally rap HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page also extensively discusses academic studies on his activism, and Tupac is widely remembered as an activist. I conducted the research on articles and academic studies about Tupac, contacting several scholars and including all of this on the page with sources. In addition to being an influential rapper, Tupac was also involved in activism. If other artists are referred to as "activists" in the lead, then it should certainly be included in Tupac's lead as well. His activism has received academic recognition. It's not true that his mother was the real activist—Tupac's mother's activism is not studied at the academic level. I took care of citing academic sources on the page, and practically a large portion of the page discusses Tupac's activism. Therefore, "activist" should be in the lead because he has been recognized as an important activist by scholars who have analyzed his activism. What matters is the opinion of academics—they are the ones who should judge Tupac's activism. Some people minimize Tupac's activism because of his criminal life, but if they were better informed, they would discover that he was an important activist. There are many people around the world who admire him also because he was an important activist! I believe that the fact that his activism has been widely studied academically, as reported on the page, is more than enough of an argument. Pier1999 (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • rapper: The first sentence should simply state that he was a rapper. This was his primary occupation and the one that made him notable. All other occupations and roles are secondary and can be dealt with in the lead. Khiikiat (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fuckin' racist asshole, that's what I would vote for. 2001:16B8:C733:9200:D8D:A293:5BEA:6319 (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very long discussion
  • I don't think it should just say "rapper". "Activist" should definitely be included since a large amount of the lead mentions how there was activism in his music. And I think poet is relevant too since Tupac was a poet before rapping, and I actually had to study his poetry in school. Yeah he was a notable actor too, but now that I think about it he only played in a few movies. And everyone knows he was a songwriter since he made music. The lead should say "Tupac Shakur was an American rapper, activist, and poet". It's short and perfect, those are his main occupations. He wrote dozens of poems and there was tons of activism in his music. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Popular songs with political/socio-cultural lyrical content are second in number only to love songs, going back to the 1800s--by your reasoning, we should be changing the ledes of thousands of articles on musicians and bands ... Chuck D, Ice Cube, Ice-T, etc. Killer Mike, Tom Morello, and Boots Riley are appropriate examples of musicians and activists. I like all seven artists, but you'll need a stronger argument for Tupac's activism. Caro7200 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in Tupac's speeches, interviews, a almost all of his music has activism in it more than any other artist. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel like we're not going to reach an agreement with everyone in this discussion. But who agrees with me that "rapper, activist, poet" sounds perfect. Tupac was a huge political activist in a vast majority of interviews songs and speeches, and wrote dozens of poems, published over 72 in one book. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not conviced about poet. Knitsey (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok so I was wrong, a friend told me Tupac added 72 poems in a book, but apparently he didn't publish a book. But there's mention online of an unpublished book of poems written by 11-year-old Tupac that was up for auction. it's clear that Tupac had a significant body of poetic work that made it to print. And some of the sources say "Tupac the legendary rapper, activist, and poet", like the source I linked earlier, and I did study Tupac's poems in class. Poet is extremely relevant and should be added he was a poet before rapping. And "activist" should be added because over half of the lead talks about his activism. Is there anyone that agrees with "rapper, activist, poet"? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, what you studied in school needs to backed up by reliable sources. The article you provided said poet then never mentioned it in the body of the article, no details of any publications or even examples. You need reliable sources that talk about his poetry and why it's relevant. Knitsey (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://mypoeticside.com/poets/tupac-shakur-poems HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tupac is not widely recognized for being an activist nor poet in his lifetime. He engaged in these activities on a limited basis at best. He was primarily a rapper with actor being a secondary role. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's according to you. I have cited professional articles that clearly demonstrate the opposite. And in 2003, Harvard held a symposium that also focused on his political activism. Pier1999 (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you write something personal, make sure to say "in my opinion." Numerous academic studies describe Tupac's activism. I have millions of sources on Tupac, and I have even contacted academics directly. But have you actually read the entire page? Have you read what we've written? Many of my edits were accepted because I cited academic sources, and we've clearly established that he is recognized as an important activist. Obviously, the first thing he is recognized for is being a rapper, but his work as an activist is absolutely significant as well. Why are you participating in the discussion on this page without being even remotely informed about its content?! Pier1999 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are having a discussion on Wikipedia, a site where sources must be cited, and where academic sources take precedence over mainstream ones, and you're citing your personal opinions? And these would be considered fact? All this without being even slightly informed about what we've written on the page? "Actor as a secondary role" is your opinion. In any article about Tupac, he is primarily mentioned as a rapper and as a second role, an activist. Pier1999 (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Has any film academy recognized Tupac as an important actor? No, but academics who study activism have recognized Tupac as an important political activist. We have already written and mentioned this on the page, citing accurate sources. Always remember to say "in my opinion." Pier1999 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You talk too much, that we can agree on. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that I usually never write a complete comment. I should write a full comment without posting multiple comments, you're right about that. Pier1999 (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the page cites studies that discuss his influence as a political activist. "His activism is not exaggerated," I contributed to citing academic articles on Tupac's influence in activism. The page extensively discusses the fact that he was a highly influential activist, fighting for important causes. It mentions studies from Harvard University and the University of Oslo, where his activism is also discussed. Tupac's mother was an activist, but her activism is not studied at the academic level. Unlike other celebrities, Tupac is widely recognized as an activist. He engaged in numerous acts of activism throughout his life. The lead also states that he is considered "a politically conscious activist voice for Black America," which is supported by academic opinions. Pier1999 (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah I agree with you Activist should be in the lead. What I disagree is "songwriter", I think "poet" should replace that. Everyone knows he's a songwriter because he made music. And he wrote dozens and dozens of poems, before he was even rapping. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we have already discussed the term "songwriter." Pier1999 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok can we close the RfC? Just about all of us agree actor should be removed since he was only in a few movies. Majority of us agree "activist" should be added. And one person said "poet" needs reliable sources, I already linked two and I found one instantly in the page. Btw I just saw @Pier1999's new message that says "but songwriter has already been discussed". That's not relevant, this RfC was created to discuss it again since the 2017 RfC was before when you discussed "songwriter" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, "poet" doesn't work because we usually refer to a poet as someone who writes poetry. There are studies that define Tupac as a great poet, but this is in reference to the lyrics of his songs. Therefore, "songwriter" should be added. Pier1999 (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He did write poetry.just go on the official Tupac YouTube channel. A whole bunch of his short poems are uploaded, and I already sent a reliable source that names some of the poems he wrote like "Family Tree" "can u c the pride in the panther" and some of the poems I had to read in school like "The rose that grew from the concrete" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. But his work as a songwriter has been much more significant. Pier1999 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You just said "yes I know", but previously you said he didn't write poetry and that's just a reference to his music. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok if we keep "songwritwer" in the lead can we also keep poet, and add everything besides "actor", kinda like how the page was before someone added "actor" a week ago HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Way too early to close the RfC; there is not consensus that activist and poet should be in the lede, as only three editors have chosen an option. There's nothing in the article that mentions anything related to activism outside of his song lyrics and themes--lyrics and themes touched on by dozens of other hip hop musicians of the same period. Unlike the three mentioned above (and others, like Joan Baez or Neil Young or Nina Simone), Tupac's activism is based only on his art. A better article would explain why reliable sources consider his words, rather than his acts, to be enough to label him an activist. Please visit Wikipedia:Teahouse for help with editing and RfCs, and be patient. You may want to post to something like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums to gain more input. Caro7200 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    its looking more and more likely like all editors won't agree on one thing. You literally said the word "rapper" should be replaced with "musician". No one's going to agree with that. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the articles we cited, academics from around the world describe Tupac as a prominent figure in the activism of Black America. He mentioned other activists, but they do not have the same level of academic recognition as Tupac. Pier1999 (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's absolutely not like that; Tupac's activism is not solely based on his art. None of the individuals you mentioned have anywhere near the same level of academic recognition as Tupac does as an activist. The article clearly states that Tupac was also a civil rights activist. In fact, Humans agrees with me on this. Pier1999 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When engaging in a discussion on Wikipedia, you can't just state things based on personal opinion. According to whom do the people you cited have done more activism than Tupac? I can provide numerous academic articles that describe Tupac's role as an activist. You forgot to write "in my opinion." Pier1999 (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-pictures/tupac-shakur-wake-me-when-im-free-exhibit-1293618/ "Tupac Shakur was more than just one of the most influential rappers of the Nineties. He was also a poet and activist who became one of his era’s most revolutionary voices."
    https://gradozerobeats.com/en/tupac-iconic-figure-culture-hiphop/ This article describes Tupac as one of the most influential artists in music and popular culture in general, as well as an icon of activism.
    Symposium on Tupac at Harvard in 2003: https://folkmyth.fas.harvard.edu/2003-all-eyez-me-tupac-shakur-and-search-modern-folk-hero "The aim of this event is to further dialogue on the role of Tupac Shakur as a visionary and central figure in the imagination of youth, as well as in the landscape of American and global culture. As the title suggests, our goal is to envision and contemplate a new framework that emphasizes Shakur's presence not only as an artist, but as an influential agent in the evolution of contemporary cultural, political and social activism."
    I have numerous authoritative sources on Tupac's activism, which include opinions from academics. The individuals you mentioned earlier are not recognized at the academic level for their activism like Tupac is. Pier1999 (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/canada-s-ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood-painting-with-david-bowie-tupac-s-legacy-summer-reads-and-more-1.6070411/unpacking-tupac-s-complicated-legacy-on-what-would-have-been-his-50th-birthday-1.6071677 "To Ogbar( a professor and an academic), Powell, and others around the world who still listen to Shakur's music, it's that commitment to activism, as well as his charisma, fearlessness, vulnerability and contradictions, that define the young man once known as Lesane Parish Crooks." Pier1999 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tupac is also famous for the "Thug Life movement," which was a community activism movement focused on reducing violence among gangs. Do you want more sources from academics? For now, I've cited those that are included on the page. They discuss Tupac as an important activist, linked to Black activism movements. Tupac is widely recognized as an activist. When you express your opinions, please include "in my opinion," because I will always argue with sources and academic studies, never with my personal opinion. Pier1999 (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I want to have a peaceful discussion. I have plenty of sources on Tupac's activism. So far, I've limited myself to citing those on the page, but I can certainly provide more. Academics have even written books about Tupac as an activist. And I add: neither Nina Simone, nor Neil Young, nor Banez come close to the academic recognition that Tupac has. Pier1999 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darrencdm1988Darrencdm1988 actor shouldn't be in the lead he was only in a few movies, and wdym he was only a poet for a limited basis. Tupac was doing poetry when he was 11. And he wrote poems in prison and published dozens and dozens and dozens. Even had to study his poems in school. And lots of sources by academics describe pac as an important political activist HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ofc, For at least 6 to 7 months, we have been consistently citing academic sources that emphasize his work as an activist. Pier1999 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pier1999hey I've come up with a solution. Let's say "Tupac Shakur was an American rapper, activist, poet, and songwriter". Instead of replacing "songwriter" with "poet", let's keep both in HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His work as a poet is also cited at an academic level, but it refers to the poetic nature of his lyrics. Therefore, it highlights his skill as a songwriter. Pier1999 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    how do you know academics are referring to the poetic nature of his lyrics, what if they're actually referring to the poems he wrote. How about we add both "poet" and "songwriter", and say "Tupac Shakur was an American rapper, activist, poet, and songwriter?" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok Pier1999 (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Khiikiat Can I know why we should respect an RFC from 2017 and why no one has followed it for the past 7 years? Pier1999 (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is for rapper, activist, and poet, in that order. He is primarily known as a rapper, so that should go first. He is also well-known for his activism (albeit not as much as his music). His poetry (other than lyrics) may not be quite as well known, but he did write enough poems to fill a posthumously-published poetry collection. EruFish (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't object to including "songwriter". EruFish (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen only one link to a headline that mentions poet but then never mentions it in the body of the article. You need a reliable source for poet other than his lyrics, otherwise every songwriter is a poet. You need WP:RS per MOS:ROLEBIO. Knitsey (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This [1] is a better reference for poetry (other than lyrics). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, it should cover As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. I'm not disputing that he was an actor and a small volume of poetry was published posthumously, but the lede should reflect the contents of the article. Actor is mentioned a lot more than poetry. Per MOS:LEAD, The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.
    I think some people need to have a read of the policies, it might help with understanding of the concise nature of the lede how it is used to address the body of the article.
    Poetry does not feature prominently in the article. Actor has its own section, which could be argued for inclusion in the lede although I'm still not particularly eager for actor to be included due to his limited participation in that area. It would be really helpful for people to reason on policy for inclusion/exclusion as there is some original research going on. Knitsey (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we all agree? Rapper, activist, and songwriter? Pier1999 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, not how this works. Wait for the process to complete. Caro7200 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So me, pier1999, and now another guy EruFish agree with "rapper, activist, poet" and most of us including kitney agree actor shouldn't be added. We're getting somewhere, give me 20 minutes, I'm busy rn, by I might link like 10 reliable sources that talk about Tupac's poetry. And kitney, Tupac didn't write small amount of poetry he's been writing since 11 and published dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't agree with actor. But it's a weak objection. Knitsey (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ik that's what I said, you don't agree with actor HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a reliable source that says one of Tupac's poems is worth 95,000 USD. ttps://www.complex.com/music/a/tracewilliamcowen/handwritten-2pac-poem-from-1995-is-going-for-95-thousand-dollars-in-autograph-dealers-sale
    Here's some more reliable sources that talk about Tupac's poems
    https://thesource.com/2016/06/16/tupac-shakur-the-prototype-of-a-street-poet/
    https://www.thefader.com/2017/09/11/canadian-poet-laureate-plagiarizing-tupac
    I'm glad people are starting to agree "rapper, activist, poet" or "rapper, activist, poet, and songwriter" sounds good. Tupacs poetry is notable for it's raw honesty, powerful imagery, and emotional depth. His ability to address complex social issues with such clarity and passion has made him one of the most influential poets of all time HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another reliable source that calls him a poet. https://afro.com/honoring-the-life-of-tupac-shakur-a-poet-a-prophet-and-a-beloved-son-of-baltimore/ and when I went searching for one in the Wikipedia article yesterday, I found one instantly. And like I said Tupacs been doing poetry before rapping. If his poems are worth 90,000 USD, if I'm learning about them in school, if academics call him a great poet, yeah that should be included in lead HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I also remind you that this RfC has only been open for 24 hours and it should not be closed prematurely.
    Thanks for the links. The second link doesn't discuss Tupacs poetry so much as it's a piece about plagiarism.
    The first source is better although I'm struggling to find any details of editorial oversight for the Web site. It might be OK for use. Knitsey (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have you brought up this RFC story right now? It's been 7 years. Pier1999 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • musician and actor: These terms encompass all of the other ones that are proposed. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it seems we'll never reach an agreement because people are voting and saying different things. Pier1999 (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pier1999 I know right. That's why I tried to close the RfC yesterday. It's a fact not everyone is going to agree with one thing, now people are saying we should remove the word "rapper". Pier, since me, you, EruFish agree with "rapper, activist, poet," or "rapper, activist, poet, and songwriter", and since kitney also agrees actor shouldn't be in the lead, I don't knows why we can't close the RfC. Most of us reached an agreement and it's obvious everyone won't. Who's going to agree to remove the word "rapper" for "musician" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a new RfC but worded a little better (no offence to LK who kindly started the RfC).
    It would be better to have maybe 3 options? Something like option A. Rapper and musician. Option B. Rapper, activist and poet etc. These are just a suggestion. It makes it easier to see who prefers what and it's easier to see how it's weighted. For example it is usual to add more weight to those who decide on an option whilst also discussing reasons why and using relevant policy. Knitsey (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess option A would be "rapper, activist, poet, songwritwer". Some people are saying "Musician and actor" so I guess that'll be option b. Some people are also saying "rapper and actor" so I guess that's C. I disagree with every option except the first one HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol no, C is the same as voting A. Knitsey (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • rapper and actor per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Those are the two most notable things about him. There other stuff can be detailed further in the lead. The status quo of the previous RFC is good and nothing has changed to justify changing it now. Nemov (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But how can his acting career be considered more notable than his work as an activist and songwriter? We’ve cited academic studies on the page that discuss his activism and opinions from his colleagues stating that he’s one of the greatest songwriters of all time. Did you even read the page? Pier1999 (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I was the one who provided academic sources and improved the page. The lead should include the things that are most extensively described on the page: rapper, activist, and songwriter. Pier1999 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov Ask anyone random, when they think of Tupac, they don't think "actor" at first, they mainly think about him as a rapper and his activism. It's debatable if they either think of poet or actor next. I think he was more notable as a poet. I learned about his poems in school, one of Tupac's poems sold for over 90,000 USD, and reliable sources usually say "rapper and poet" not "rapper and actor" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @Pier1999 "rapper and activist" sounds better than "rapper and actor". I'm ok with "rapper and activist" "rapper, activist, poet", "rapper, activist, songwriter", or "rapper, activist, poet, and songwriter". Tupac was only in a few movies he wasn't a notable actor at all. Academics describe Tupac as a great activist and poet, no one's talking about Tupac's movies HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and to Tupac (sorry, I was living under a rock, as far as this world is concerned). What I am left with reading almost the entire article with interest is that "rapper and activist". Those are his areas of maximum impact. Rigorousmortal (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you discussing the lead of a page that you haven't even read? Isn't that absurd? Pier1999 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nemov, the page about Maya Angelo says "memoirist, poet, and civil rights activist". What's wrong with naming 3 or 4 occupations. Page about Mao Zedong says "politician, Marxist theorist, military strategest, poet, and revolutionary. How about we just list all occupations. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is obviously not going anywhere. Everyone's voting for something different, We've spent hours arguing. Just list all the occupations. Wasting hours and hours just for one sentence in a Wikipedia article is silly. Let's just close RfC now. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • rapper and actor per MOS:ROLEBIO. A thorough and careful reading and application of MOS:LEAD may also be useful: while technically meeting the four paragraphs guideline, it's still incredibly long; there are around 26 references used in the lead, which shouldn't be necessary if the information is adequately discussed in the body; which leads on to the fact that parts of the lead do not appear to be supported by the article itself. As another editor has already noted, there's no section on his poetry, but equally there's no section on his activism. There are statements here and there quoting people describing him as an activist, but WP:DUE might have to be considered here. There's certainly nothing in the article that supports adding 'activist' and 'poet' to the lead. tl;dr, nothing seems to have changed since the last RFC to justify amending the lead sentence.
(I realise, having read the talk page up to here, that there are some editors who may wish to immediately disagree with me or otherwise discuss my response; I would urge those editors to please read and consider WP:BLUDGEON.) JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"people who consider him," no on the page they cite the views of academics who consider him an important and relevant activist. We even wrote in his academic section that in 2003 Harvard University held a symposium to analyze his role as a political activist and influential artist. "people who consider him" but are you really joking? Pier1999 (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the opinions of Jeffrey Ogbar, an academic, and the one from Harvard are cited. Additionally, a book by Michael Eric Dyson is mentioned, which also discusses the importance of Tupac as an activist. So, by 'people,' do you mean academics and Harvard University? Pier1999 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, academic sources take precedence over mainstream ones. I was the one who improved the page with academic sources; the page states that his music and activism have been the subject of academic studies. Lol. Pier1999 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say On Wikipedia, academic sources take precedence over mainstream ones but you do not support this claim with a link to any policy. This claim is therefore completely unwarranted and, as as far as I can tell, false. Not only that, by replying to my comment without quoting policy and doing so in three separate parts, you have completely failed to heed my warning not to WP:BLUDGEON JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand your stance. It is clearly written on the page, with sources, that there are academics who consider him a significant activist, and you write things like this? 'People'—but is your opinion more important than that of an academic? And it also says that Harvard held a symposium to analyze his political activism! Pier1999 (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Long separate discussion
this wikipedia article mentions how Nas said he puts Tupac beyond the poet William Shakespeare. This wikipedia article also mentions how Andy Green said "Tupac was also a poet and activist who became one of his era’s most revolutionary voices." And what's wrong with naming more occupations, like poet and Activist, the wikipedia article about Maya Angelo says "memorist, poet, and civil rights Activist" and the Wikipedia page about Mao Zedong says "politician, Marxist strategest, poet, and revolutionary". HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JustAnotherCompanion Also you say there's no section on his poetry, that's actually a good point. There's mentions of his poetry in this article that compare him to legendary poets and civil rights activists like Maya Angelo, Shakespeare, Malcom X, but there's no section for poetry. I bet someone just forgot, let me add that real quick, thanks HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also the lead in Mao Zedong calls him a poet but there's no section on his poetry, people just forgot. Btw I know this might violate bludgeoning because I wrote Three comments, please don't be mad I didn't write a very high number of comments,I only write 3, I should wait before all the thoughts come in my head to discuss instead of writing multiple comments sorry. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding comparisons to other articles, WP:OTHERCONTENT applies (and certainly in the case of Maya Angelou, those mentions are well supported. Regarding 'X said...', I've already said WP:DUE could be considered here; there are no references to any actual acts of activism here, only to people calling him an activist. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your new comment JustAnotherCompanion. Wdym there are no references to any actual acts of activism in this Tupac article, this article talks about how he's an Activist in the lead, later it talks about his black panther heritage, there's only one section for "actor" meanwhile throughout this article it talks about how people compare him to Malcom x Martin Luther King Jr, just go in legacy and rememberance HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of this RfC. HumansRightsIsCool, your constant badgering is uncalled for and you are refusing to address policy concerns in some instances. Knitsey (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
im out of this RfC too. Now that I think about it I don't care anymore, let's just keep rapper and actor, but can I remove some of the stuff that talks about his activism so I can talk about how he was an actor in the lead HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok most of us agree with "rapper and actor" now, someone close the RfC HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the activist sections? Are you okay? We can keep "rapper" and "actor," but if there are sources that talk about their other activities, they should be maintained. Just like in other pages where they list "rapper" and "actor" and also discuss their activist work. You removed academic sources. Pier1999 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're violating Wikipedia's guidelines; on Common's page, he's only described as a rapper, but they also write about his activism. Why did you remove those sections? Pier1999 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the part in the lead where it mentions that he is considered a politically conscious activist voice for Black America while keeping the same sources. You basically wrote that he was an actor and poet with sources that say otherwise. Who told you to include "poet" in the lead? And who told you to remove the professional sources? Do you think we live in anarchy on Wikipedia? Pier1999 (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've reached total anarchy—he removed content from the lead that had sources, writing things without sources (using the same sources that actually talk about something else). He removes things with professional sources from the page, creates a section for poetry without professional sources, and insists on including "poet" everywhere on the page, even in the lead, just because he thinks so. This is the pinnacle of original research. And also, no one has closed the RFC, but he decides to close it on his own. He has created the most contradictory page in Wikipedia's history: the lead sources talk about how academics consider him a politically conscious voice for Black America, but instead, it talks about poetry (with sources that discuss activism). I find these actions offensive towards me because I had to search for and gather academic sources from across the web to demonstrate that Tupac is considered an important activist. I significantly improved the page with academic sources, and now Human can write things without sources and force the page to talk about Tupac's poetry (not even related to his lyrics, but his poems), without anyone giving him the slightest approval and without professional sources. Pier1999 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human went crazy, insisting that poetry must be mentioned on the page; he's obsessed with it. He removed the professional sources that talked about Tupac as an activist for no reason. In the lead, he changed the wording while keeping sources that actually describe him as a politically conscious voice for Black America. We've ended up with the most contradictory page ever: the sources confirm one thing, but what's written says another. He insists on mentioning poetry throughout the page and even in the lead, all without any sources. Are we aware of this? Pier1999 (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've reached the point where people can remove content supported by professional sources. Where a page says one thing, but the cited sources say another. And incredibly, there are people obsessed with the topic of "Tupac's poetry" who want to include it everywhere without having sources or by using weak and non-professional sources. And now, according to him, the RFC has been closed—who decided that? Him?! Pier1999 (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please step away from the horse. Once an RFC is open please allow the process to play out per WP:RFCEND. You and HumansRightsIsCool have stated your opinion. Let other editors comment and stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion.

Main Image

[edit]

I added a public domain image of Tupac to the infobox, which immediately got removed. This image is a better alternative since I uploaded a high quality one and it is non-copyrighted. I want your opinion on changing the image Wcamp9 (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree in changing it. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyGuy744 why are you stalking my account? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyGuy744 @Wcamp9 I tried adding the same image you two did, and me and other editors came to an agreement the old one is more high quality. Poor resolution Drivers license photo of a celebrity shouldn't be added to wikipedia infobox. It's unprofessional HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wdym "you too". I'm agreeing with you the image shouldn't be moved. Also I'm stalking your edits because wikipedians are fascinating. Anyways bys brother DisneyGuy744 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Humans, you know what, since you wanna be mean to me I'm undoing your edits and going back to Camp9 edit DisneyGuy744 (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bro stop. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the image to a high quality image Wcamp9 (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry but how is the current image a “high quality” image? It’s clear that the image is heavily edited/restored, as the original image wouldn’t look as HQ as that. Also, I don’t support the idea of adding photos that were specifically shot for government issued IDs, passports (like the current image), licenses etc…, I’d highly prefer to use the previous black and white photo of Pac from the Juice photoshoot. As that photo, unlike the current one, is an original photo, and not restored. Moh8213 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use that photo because we already have a free image of Tupac in the article (the one of him as a child), and the license image is free. Once we have a free image we cannot use a non-free one.
I strongly oppose using the AI enhanced version though. Very misleading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyGuy744 @Wcamp9 @PARAKANYAA @Moh8213 @HumansRightsIsCool
Original uploader of the Tupac Shakur passport photo and driver license photo here. Upon second thought, I'm not 100% certain that the passport photo is PD. Usually, you get it taken at a professional studio and only send it to the State Department. I assumed that because there was no creativity involved on the part of the studio, there was no copyright. I am no longer so sure.
On the other hand, the California DMV directly takes driver license photos, so I am sure that the license is still PD. Bremps... 23:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NAADAAN I vaguely recall you won some sort of argument related to this on commons before. Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion can be found here, we both agreed that passport pictures in the U.S. don't match TOO because of the standards set forth by the State Department. Since an A.I. enhanced picture cannot be used by principle, maybe a "high-qualiity" copy of Tupac's passport picture can be directly obtained via FOIA to the State Dept., but this will take a few months at best.
I'm honestly surprised that no photographer (incl. amateur) has shown any interest in releasing a free use picture of Tupac. Has anyone attempted to reach out to anyone who would be willing to release one under OTRS? NAADAAN (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can reach out to Tupac fans, too. Maybe someone would have a picture they're willing to release freely. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with regard to me changing the image, I have no preference as to what we use (they all are not great), but now that we have free images we literally cannot use a non-free one per NFCC. Even if we didn't have these, we have the free image of him as a kid, which also overrules it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, it's a little more complex than "now that we have free images we literally cannot use a non-free one per NFCC" if there's dispute over whether they are a free content equivalent or not. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Meeting the no free equivalent criterion: Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created. Now, if that means that amongst all the options that are equally poor/not-great levels of quality, we have a free content equivalent, then yes, we must use that one. But if the difference in quality between a greater quality non-free version and the lesser quality free version makes the latter insufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, then it's not an equivalent and shouldn't be used.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here, the NFCC purpose is identification, not decoration. Every single photo here is high quality enough that you can tell it is Tupac. Everything above that is unnecessary for the purposes of NFCC. Other NFCC purposes may have different standards. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question: Why not use the 1994 photo by Chi Modu as the main image? It appears in the 'Legacy and remembrance' section PantMal (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PantMal That image was non-free and was used in a way that violates policy. I have removed it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AKA the original George Floyd where criminals get praised 2605:59C8:9F5:3110:E447:E89:5514:1B2D (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupak Shakur’s photo

[edit]

I would like to know why Tupak Shaku’s biography photo is the most blurry photo ever seen in Wikipedia. The only thing that surprised me is when I uploaded a well cleared image then editors removed within five hours. The reality is that the current photo is so bad that cannot attract readers Fery Hury (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns the rights to that picture? Is there an authorization for it's use? Is it fair use? Is it in public domain? Coltsfan (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The United States of America owns the right to the photo and it is public domain (if you were talking about the current picture). The picture is blurry, I was thinking about replacing it with the cropped version instead. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about the current picture, the passport one, but the other one, that was there previously. Coltsfan (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point, the point is not the quality. The question is: is that picture fair use? Is it public domain? Who is the author? I don't think that picture is fair use. Coltsfan (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not relevant anymore. The photo was deleted due to lack of license and not being fair use, as previously mentioned. Coltsfan (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fery Hury's "well cleared image" was File:2Pac Passport (cropped).jpg, which seems to be an (extremely heavily) AI-upscaled render of Tupak's 1995 passport photo (File:Tupac Shakur passport (cropped).jpg). MOS:IMAGES says that Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. --Belbury (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

[edit]

change "Shakur had a falling out with B.I.G. after he was shot at Quad Studios in 1994." to "Shakur had a falling out with B.I.G. after Shakur was shot at Quad Studios in 1994." Tommy2024 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2024

[edit]

Under "Academic Appraisal" section, 2nd paragraph, line 2, change Emmett Price to Emmett G. Price III

citation 285 Price III, Emmett G. Emmett G. Price III (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Please provide the full reference instead of the citation number. The citation or reference number changes if a reference is removed or added somewhere in the article before it. Shadow311 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done I changed the reference but I'm not sure how to format the numeral in your name properly. Bremps... 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I tweaked the formatting per MOS:JR, so I believe it's fully done now. Skynxnex (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic views

[edit]
Thread retitled from "Changes".

My changes. I don’t see why the lede was bombarded with the academic views on him (this was referenced in the first paragraph and also the fourth paragraph, which is unnecessary, repetitive, and is clear puffery). The second sentence in the lede covers the fact that he is one of the most influential rappers of all time, and this suffices, no need to single out academics in almost every paragraph. RapForever863 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence: “His influence in music, activism, songwriting, and other areas of culture has been the subject of academic studies.” in the fourth paragraph suffices when it comes to mentioning academics. But to mention this many times in the lede is clear puffery and ruins the flow of the lede. RapForever863 (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyGuy744 @Pier1999 discuss. I'm too lazy. Btw pier is the one who made the page so discuss with him HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
like I said, I don’t see why the lede was bombarded with the academic views on him (this was referenced in the first paragraph and also the fourth paragraph, which is unnecessary, repetitive, and is clear puffery). The second sentence in the lede covers the fact that he is one of the most influential rappers of all time, and this suffices, no need to single out academics in almost every paragraph. There is also no consensus that mentioning academic recognition should be mentioned more than once in the lede. That is clear puffery. RapForever863 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is consensus. Do you realize that what I write has already been approved by administrators? The last person who did what you're doing was banned. Pier1999 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care, all the pages of culturally influential figures have important things written everywhere. So the page is fine as it is. Pier1999 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead you want to create does not fully describe the significance of the figure. Every academically relevant figure has an important lead. If it were up to you, then 1,000 pages would need to be edited. You simply don't like Tupac. Pier1999 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already discussed this some time ago, and we decided that it has to go this way. At most, we can consider removing: "its influence in music, etc.," but not the lead. Pier1999 (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, there was no discussion or consensus about academics being mentioned both in the first paragraph and the fourth. I believe it can be mentioned in the fourth paragraph, but not in the first, because it’s not that notable, and it’s already covered in the second sentence which covers his influence. I’m against puffery. Other users have already shown opposition to this puffery regarding the topic of academics such as @FMSky and @JustAnotherCompanion RapForever863 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you search in the deleted discussions, we already discussed this with an administrator, and another user was banned for modifying the lead as he wanted. I don’t understand why Tupac shouldn’t have those things written in the lead if they are confirmed by academics and why it bothers you so much. Check the old discussions in the history, we’ve already established that the lead is fine because it reflects the content of the sources. On Wikipedia, if you cite content from academic sources, it is accepted. Pier1999 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand why this bothers you so much. Tupac has received academic recognition. Otherwise, we would have to remove similar mentions from other activists or artists. The lead you want to create doesn’t fully describe the significance of the figure. On every page about an important artist, it says: "is considered one of the greatest artists of the 20th century." Imagine not including that in the page of an artist who has received various academic accolades. Pier1999 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Tupac has received various academic recognitions, then the page should frequently talk about that, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. On Wikipedia, if you use authoritative sources, they are accepted. Pier1999 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one gave you permission to remove the lead. On Wikipedia, you need permission, and you need to discuss it. Do not remove the lead again, or you might get blocked. Discuss. Pier1999 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, go to the page of Bob Dylan and other artists who have received great academic praise, it's written everywhere. The truth is, you just don't like Tupac. Stop edit war, the page is fine as it is. Pier1999 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to justify puffery. It is not allowed on Wikipedia. @FMSky agrees with me that it is puffery. RapForever863 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully consensus will be reached and your puffery will be removed from the lede. RapForever863 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soon that is. RapForever863 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RapForever863 why do you care so much? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it seems like you are violating Wikipedia's rules on neutrality. Why are you so interested in having the lead not be like that? Pier1999 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky please deal with this nonsense. Puffery cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. RapForever863 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making changes, otherwise, the page will be locked due to an edit war. Let’s discuss and see. Stop editing, I will restore the page to its previous version. Let’s discuss, and only after we’ve finished discussing, we’ll consider how to modify the page. Otherwise, there will be an edit war. Pier1999 (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HumansRightsIsCool Pier1999 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't reach consensus like this, ow you've really had enough. You're practically creating an edit war. This goes against Wikipedia's rules. Stop it. If you continue like this, you will be banned because you are creating an edit war. Pier1999 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RapForever863 why are you creating an edit war? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed version of the lede

[edit]

I restored the lede to an agreed version between me and @FMSky, which states: “He is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential rappers of all time and a prominent political activist for Black America.” This version has no puffery. RapForever863 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating an unnecessary edit war. Stop it. If you continue to make changes, you will be banned, and the page will be locked from editing for weeks. Stop it Pier1999 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tupac_Shakur&oldid=1263618182"