Talk:Tupac Shakur

Removed puffery and original research in the lede

None of the sources cited imply that academics regard him as one of the most influential music artists of the 20th century and also a politically conscious activist voice for Black America. This is clear puffery; also, original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Tupac is also not notable for being talked about among “academics”. ActionHeroesAreReal (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

All the sources @Pier1999 linked are from academics, one is from Harvard. And they describe Tupac as one of the biggest hip hop artists of the 20th century, literally says that in the sources, that's not puffery, it's the facts. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also you're removing other information that was sourced too. Your deleting random sentences from all over the article because apparently you're not a fan of Tupac and you don't want the article to say that he's one of the most influential rappers, despite that's what sources say. That's not puffery or false praise, that's not praise at all that's literally what sources say. And you're violating the "Wikipedia:Tendentious editing" policy. The policy states "Tendentious editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view. It may also involve repeated attempts to insert or delete content in the face of the objections of several other editors". Your deleting important info because you don't like tupac. You're violating that policy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

and why do you keep removing the word "other" in the lead. Tupac was also African American himself. That's why it says "the marginalization of other African Americans", now you're just removing content from the page just because you feel like it, even when it's sourced and notable. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

He has done this before, when I had written activist in the lead and decided to remove it by his personal will without any consent. But in that case I let it be, now I realize that he doesn't know who Tupac was at all, practically there are academic studies about him everywhere in the world. I have also contacted various academics, it is really a strange situation. Anyway until he has someone's consent, he cannot edit the page, if not it will be edit war. Pier1999 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not true, the cited sources widely mention Tupac as one of the most influential artists of the 21st century and as a politically aware activist voice for black America. Tupac is not worthy of academic mention? Have you even read the whole page? There's a section devoted to his academic evaluation, plus I have plenty of other academic sources. I will tell you more, I have directly contacted many academics who teach courses on Tupac all over the world. My sources are unlimited. You obviously don't know Tupac Pier1999 (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Tupac not worth mentioning among academics? Basically in 'Legacy and remembrance', there is the 'Academic appraisal' part. Ahahahhah, you're acting this way because you don't like Tupac. Is Tupac not worth mentioning among academics? Basically in 'Legacy and remembrance', there is the 'Academic appraisal' part. Ahahahhah, you're acting this way because you don't like Tupac. However I have unlimited academic sources on Tupac, the sources cited are from the University of Oslo, Harvard University, an article in The Conversation where an academic (Jeffrey Og ogbar), defines Tupac as one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. The article, on the other hand, from cbc Canada, where Jeffrey Og ogbar's opinion is again quoted, as well as that of Kevin Powell, an activist and professional writer. Did you read the sources or are you joking? Pier1999 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In practice, you are deleting things from the page by your own will, not by anything else. In the sources mentioned there is the opinion of academics, instead of removing the sources, start reading the cited articles. By the way, on Tupac's English Wikipedia page there is even a section called "Academic appraisal", precisely because he is the subject of study among academics. Lol Pier1999 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You will not receive anyone's consent, I and everyone who edits the page agree to write these things. So stop editing them, you are just doing edit war because you probably don't know Tupac well. Even some administrators have written to me that the sources I quoted are good. Yours is just edit war, 'Tupac is not noteworthy to be mentioned among academics', in the Wikipedia english page instead there is a section dedicated to his academic evaluation. But why do you edit this page if you know nothing about Tupac? I repeat: you don't have anyone's consent, the sources quoted are largely what it says, and I have contacted many academics directly. Stop with these edit wars Pier1999 (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Until you have someone's consent, you cannot edit the page. It's crazy that you started deleting parts of the article without reading the sources at all. It's crazy that you started deleting parts of the article without reading the sources at all. And you keep writing that there are no sources reporting this, when in fact the sources clearly write that thing. You write that Tupac is not noteworthy for being mentioned among academics when his page even has a section reporting his academic evaluation. You know nothing about Tupac, you have been trying to belittle his character for months without any sense. Besides, I have directly contacted academics from all over the world, I can even link you their social profiles directly if you want. It's a crazy situation lol Pier1999 (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Tupac's Wikipedia page is not a personal space, if you want to edit something you must first have someone's consent. For now you don't have consent, I and many others agree to keep the page that way. If you have consent you can edit, otherwise there will be an edit war. Pier1999 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

However, you are arguing with a person who will have at least 200 academic articles on Tupac and who has contacted academics all over the world. My changes have been approved by everyone, including the administrators. Your behaviour is completely impartial and I repeat: without any consent, according to Wikipedia rules, you cannot continue to edit the page. Pier1999 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the thousands of posts, but I am at a loss as to how one can write that Tupac is not worthy of being mentioned among academics when he is the subject of academic study all over the world, and in fact in all his Wikipedia pages in any language his academic evaluation is mentioned. Anyway, that's the end of the story, until you get consent you can't remove those parts of the page. Pier1999 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You make a compelling point. With 200 academic articles on Tupac under your belt and having received approval from administrators and academics worldwide, your expertise and authority in this matter are undeniable. I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the integrity of the Tupac article HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"do not continue to vandalize the article by making undiscussed removals of sourced content without consensus. Your claims of "original research" are inappropriate given the reliable sourcing of the content you're removing. Do not edit war further on this article." "As @Swatjester told you. Stop vandalizing the page! Pier1999 (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Whole lot of issues here.

• @ActionHeroesAreReal: -- do not continue to vandalize the article by making undiscussed removals of sourced content without consensus. Your claims of "original research" are inappropriate given the reliable sourcing of the content you're removing. Do not edit war further on this article.
• @Pier1999: --your academic credentials are irrelevant here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and they need no titles, qualifications, or expertise to do so. Your behavior above is a gross display of ownership over an article -- you do not have any authority to tell someone that they may not edit a page without your consent, nor are you entitled to use your personal credentials as a bludgeon in an argument. Additionally, your spamming of several comments in a row is aggressive and unhelpful. Knock it off.

Neither of you are exemplifying the behavior we expect of editors. If it continues, there *will* be sanctions against the editors involved. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely apologize, how can I go back to edit the page? Pier1999 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to do that, I just wrote those things because I put a lot of discretion in editing articles, I understand I did wrong, but I can help make the page better. I would like to go back to being able to edit the page, how can I do that? Pier1999 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, you can't; I have protected the page so that only administrators can edit it due to the persistent edit warring. Use this time to make yourselves familiar with our policies and to discuss proposed edits on the talk page. When the protection expires, the page will become editable again. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pier1999 you didn't do anything wrong. Me and you stopped constant vandalism on this page HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@HumansRightsIsCool: -- I should note that you are edit warring and in violation of the 3RR on this article, with at least 5 reverts within the past 24 hours. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Content disputes are not vandalism, and are not exemptions to the edit warring policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I was only reverting because there was tons of vandalism on the page HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Content disputes are not vandalism", aren't they though when someone removes tons of sourced info from the page without explanation? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

According to policy: On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. and Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. -- from Wikipedia:Vandalism ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Here we go, the user has returned to vandalize the page. What should we do now? Pier1999 (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@ActionHeroesAreReal Why are you continuing to edit the page if you have been told not to? If you keep doing this, the administrators will ban you from editing. Pier1999 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators say he's allowed to edit the page, the problem is he keeps removing a bunch of random sentences from this article and he keeps calling it original research despite it being sourced, and he's edit warring with people HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion Pier1999 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Tupac page

The page for Tupac can now be edited by everyone; it wasn't like that before. Previously, only administrators and users with permission could edit it. This rule needs to be reinstated, or it will be edited every day Pier1999 (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's protected again HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Tupac page protected

Can someone make this page protected please thx. Confunxion (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There should be a button on our user page to call administrators. Pier1999 (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

its protected again HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not, I just logged out of my profile and it lets me edit even without going in. It is not protected, this page has had two million views since March. It means we should fight against edit war every day lol Pier1999 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If I see any more accusations of vandalism from anybody, the accuser may be blocked. Work it out here or at DR, the back and forth is disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok he's not vandalizing I guess. Hey any admins though, in the lead can you put "other" before "African Americans", since Tupac was also African American. ActionHerosIsReal removed "other" because he said Grammar issues or something, I don't see how? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

can someone respond HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request

In the middle of the article's first paragraph, there are periods both before and after the 3rd and 4th reference footnotes. Please remove the latter period in accordance with MOS:REFPUNCT, since there should only be one period and it should be before the footnotes. Thank you. Left guide (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 July 2024

Please remove the sentence "In its vinyl release, side A, tracks 1 to 8, is labeled the 'Black Side', while side B, tracks 9 to 16, is the 'Dark Side'" in § Strictly 4 My N.I.G.G.A.Z... While this does seem true, I cannot find any RS on it or why it's relevant enough to be mentioned in this article instead of just in the album article. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ^talk 06:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done as the protection has expired and this may now be made directly as appropriate. Ping to @Queen of Hearts:. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

Add Actor to Tupac's credentials. 2600:1700:5192:4890:565:2201:D827:6046 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:ROLEBIO. Jamedeus (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

......

@LLawrencekhoo said "To reverse a RFC consensus, you should hold another RFC". You all reversed consensus since it was agreed upon to keep songwriter in the lead recently. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean @Lawrencekhoo HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to start a RFC? Or would you prefer that I start one? LK (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Who decides that a 2017 regulation must now be the rule? If we've decided over the years to approve different approaches? Pier1999 (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't been used for years, and now you bring this up. Why? Pier1999 (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." LK (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC roles to include in the lead sentence

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)

• 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)

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)

Btw I'm the ip 75.148.212.155. I forgot to log in lol HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows he's a songwriter because the lead already says he made music. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  @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)

  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)

• 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)

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) 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) 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) 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) I'm still not conviced about poet. Knitsey (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) https://mypoeticside.com/poets/tupac-shakur-poems HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) You talk too much, that we can agree on. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Yes, but we have already discussed the term "songwriter." Pier1999 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Yes, I know. But his work as a songwriter has been much more significant. Pier1999 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) @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) 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) @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) 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) 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) ok Pier1999 (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• rapper and actor per 2017 RFC. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Bruh we're literally having this discussion because lots of us disagree with the 2017 RFC. That's why this new RFC was opened HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Rapper and actor" are sufficient and appropriate. Do you plan on having a new RFC to relitigate the discussion after this one closes? If you desire me to make a ranked choice response, I can do that. If it will ensure the issue is put to rest for at least 7 more years I;m more than happy to do so. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  We're basically having a discussion to change this thing. What comment did you make? Lol Pier1999 (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ok me and Pier1999 are cool with "ra HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry lol. Ok me and Pier1999 are cool with rapper, Activist, poet, and songwriter. Kitney agrees to remove actor, but says I need a reliable source for poet. I linked some, and now we have something most of us agree with. Are we ready to close RfC HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  the text walling and vote badgering is not presenting y'alls case in the best light… ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@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)

• 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)

  I also don't object to including "songwriter". EruFish (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  So we all agree? Rapper, activist, and songwriter? Pier1999 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Again, not how this works. Wait for the process to complete. Caro7200 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  No, I don't agree with actor. But it's a weak objection. Knitsey (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  ik that's what I said, you don't agree with actor HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Why have you brought up this RFC story right now? It's been 7 years. Pier1999 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• musician and actor: These terms encompass all of the other ones that are proposed. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  Lol no, C is the same as voting A. Knitsey (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @Nemov HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) @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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Ok most of us agree with "rapper and actor" now, someone close the RfC HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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.

Contested edit

@Pier1999 bro what are you doing, stop edit warring, one of us is going to get in trouble and possibly banned. Stop reverting and just discuss your edit in the talk page HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to discuss your edits; mine have already been approved, and an administrator changed the lead, stating that academics consider him an influential political activist by writing "economy." None of the sources mention his poems, so why do you insist on adding the poems? Pier1999 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

because Nemov suggested it during 2024 RfC and I agreed. It says "rapper and actor" because Shakur played in tons of movies so I said that in the lead, he also wrote poems so why not add that and move your sentence, the sentence is still there, that's the solution I tried to create. Why is there always edit wars and the lead changing every three seconds. Go to any other rappers page and there's no problem, yet everyone tries to fight over Tupac, like that's so annoying HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But it doesn't have anything to do with the lead. He was suggesting the roles. In 2022, Tupac was considered a rapper and actor. But in the final part of the lead, it was written "icon of activism against injustices." There, the roles are being discussed, not the entire content of the lead. Pier1999 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"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" - Nemov during 2024 RfC HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a rule, and the RFC isn't finished. It will continue, and until that point, we need to keep "actor" and "rapper" in the description, and in the academic section, that he is considered a rapper and prominent activist. Pier1999 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The RfC isn't finished because why'll everyone pretty much agreed with rapper and actor now, you keep trying to convince people to add Activist in the lead and no one's listening HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Tupac played in movies and wrote poems is sourced already, just go to the poetry section. Just move your sentence over in the lead, mine and Nemov's sentence can be in the article and you can move your sentence over in the lead, what's the big deal? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't move the sentence in the lead; it cites academic sources. We've all already decided that it should stay there. In fact, an administrator even approved this by improving the grammar. Why should we leave in that he wrote poems and not that academics consider him an important activist? Do you realize that the latter is much more important than the former? And not by a little. Pier1999 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he has been cited by academics as an important activist is far more significant than the fact that he wrote "a dozen poems." Therefore, it must remain in the lead because it cites the opinion of academics. Pier1999 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not a policy-based argument. MOS:LEAD and MOS:BIO do not say anything that supports the claim that it must remain in the lead because it cites the opinion of academics. Please try and make sure your arguments are supported by Wikipedia policy and not stances you have come up with on your own. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine, the sources report that, and no source mentions dozens of poems and films. I stick to the sources used; we can't write something in the lead that differs from the sources used. Additionally, according to Wikipedia's rules, before changing something, a discussion needs to be opened. He didn't open any discussion to modify the lead, and furthermore, he didn't use any source. He writes that since it's mentioned on the page, it should be included without any source. Pier1999 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to remove the part about academics, I'm just trying to move the sentence a few sentences down so I can have room for the sentence me and Nemov agreed to. The fact that we argue about small sentences in wiki articles is honestly sad, why can't you just move your sentence over just a little bit HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But if there is a section for poetry, why do you need to include it in the lead as well? And it’s the same for the films, it’s written in the content of the page that he acted in various films, lol. Is what the academics say about his activism more important, or the fact that he wrote some poetry or acted in a few films? Pier1999 (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But if there is a section for poetry, why do you need to include it in the lead as well? And it’s the same for the films; it’s written in the content of the page that he acted in various films, lol. Is what the academics say about his activism more important, or the fact that he wrote some poetry or acted in a few films? Pier1999 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but no one said to remove the part about the academics; in fact, everyone agrees that it should remain. An administrator changed the grammar of the sentence about Tupac. He changed the lead and wrote "and a political activist for Black America." We all agree that this part should stay. Pier1999 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

all of it's important, that's why I'm trying to include all of it, I didn't remove your part about academics I just moved It a few sentences down HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't do that because the lead cannot become too long, and we need to stick to the sources. The academic source examines Tupac as an artist and activist separately. Besides, the lead cannot become overly long. Pier1999 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make the lead overly long I just added a short sentence that talks about his movies and poems, a sentence that takes less than 6 seconds to read HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but you couldn't do it without consensus. To include that stuff in the lead, I needed consensus. I had to discuss it, and anyway, we need to report what the sources say. The things you wrote have no consensus, no source, and you also can't change what's written in other articles. You even mixed up two different articles when that source analyzes Tupac's music and his activism as two distinct things. Pier1999 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't need a source about Tupac writing dozens of poems because it's already sourced throughout the article, same with actor. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, actually you have to do it; if you want to include it in the lead, you need to use sources. And before writing it, you still need to get consensus and start a discussion. Pier1999 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

also I already have conscious, Nemov agreed with my edits HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't agree with what you wrote. He only said that actor and rapper should be kept. He didn't say that poems should be included, and he didn't tell you to remove the part about the academics. Anyway, to write something in the lead, you need sources. We're on Wikipedia! Pier1999 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

He did agree. He said poet should be talked about later in the lead. Here's the quote "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" - Nemov during 2024 RfC and I don't need sources for something if something is already sourced. Btw you reverted over 3 of my edits first, so technically you started an edit war, and you're breaking the Wikipedia rule "Don't bludgeon the process", so it seems like you don't really care about the rules. We're on Wikipedia! HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And why do you keep saying I removed the part about academics, I just moved the sentence a few sentences down HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But you can't put it there because you would be reporting something different from the source. The source says that Tupac was a great activist because of his commitment to activism, not because of his lyrics. Pier1999 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Then I'll just move the source a few sentences down to where i moved your sentence so I can add back how he has starring roles in films and wrote poems HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Be careful. Remember when I wanted to expand the lead? They told me it was getting too long. Start a discussion about this and cite your sources. Pier1999 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

i already did start a discussion, this is the discussion lol. And poetry and actor is already sourced HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Songwriter in the lead

Wouldn't it also be appropriate to mention that he was a songwriter in the lead? Maybe in the main roles? What do you think? I'm asking because the RFC hasn't been closed. Pier1999 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

done HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Mace Windu

In the "Posthumous rumored roles and Star Wars" section:

"The character's bald appearance could have also been an homage to Shakur."

The cited Rolling Stone article makes no mention of this and this comment in general seems largely speculative. Townkryer (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that section is insufficiently supported and also shouldn't be more than a line long at most. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the quoted sentence from the article now. It's clear speculation ('could have') and it is not supported by the reference given. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)