Talk:I Can (Nas song)

the "shot up" line most likely refers to cocaine Rofflecopterzorz 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, historical innacuracies should be removed. 67.162.158.212 00:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You agree that the Sphynx snorted cocaine? Rofflecopterzorz is a joke, and you're making yourself into a joke by agreeing with him--Urthogie 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys. Guys. No. The line, "They shot up they nose to impose basically what still goes on today you see" isn't in reference to cocaine or the nose of the Sphynx. It's in reference to snobbery. They [White Europeans] stuck their noses in the air, because they felt themselves better than black people and treated them like slaves. Which, in a sense, still happens today.

He's not talking about an actual nose. Lulzatron 08:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted? The section I removed was based on misinterpretation of the lyrics; it has no relevance, then, to this article. The line "shot up" does, in fact, NOT refer to cocaine. Why do we have a section explaining something that wasn't said? Lulzatron 07:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lulzatron, your (retarded) interpreation is original research. If you can find a reliable source who makes your interpreation you can add it to the article.  And if you're wondering, its not an original interpreation to say that "nose" means nose, and shot up means "shot up."  We need no source to prove that words have meanings.  Your retarded metaphor, however, requires a source.  PS: you're clearly trolling here because you think its funny.  But you're not funny. Thanks, --Urthogie 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Damnit. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but you're making it difficult. There were no sources on the original text. Why don't YOU find a reliable source that goes with YOUR (retarded) interpretation. If he's talking about a literal nose, what does the rest of the sentence mean? "Shot up they nose to impose basically what still goes on today, you see" If he's talking about literally shooting off the nose of the Sphinx....what's being imposed? Nothing. Lulzatron 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait up. Even if your retarded unsource theory were correct, it's still a metaphor which uses a historical event which, well, didn't happen.  A metaphor still relies on comparing real things.  For example, "my love is a rose".  The love exists, as do roses, somewhere in the world.  Alexander the great shooting off a nose?  Even if its a metaphor, its a metaphor which relies on something which didn't happen.-Urthogie 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not talking about Alexander shooting the Spinx' nose. He says, "Shot up they [their] nose", referring to White Europeans. Nose is singular to rhyme with impose; it should be noses. Lulzatron 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The egyptians weren't Europeans, and Alexander was a european.--Urthogie 02:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He wouldn't be talking about Egyptians, because they're not imposing slavery on anyone as of late. However, from the black perspective, White Europeans have always imposed racism and slavery upon people of African heritage. White Europeans impose slavery on black people because of a supposed "superiority". In other words, White Europeans are snobbish and arrogant and turn up their nose in imposing their slavery on black people. As I said in the beginning. Lulzatron 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What his message is has nothing to do with the historical inaccuracies in the song. I can have a song with any message, but if it claims something happened in history that didn't, that's a historical inaccuracy.  Even if it's a metaphor.--Urthogie 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He didn't say he shot the Sphinx' nose. He's talking about the noses of the arrogant Europeans, not the nose of the Sphinx. That's what I've been saying this entire time. Lulzatron 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? By your logic we could assume that "4 score and seven years ago" referred to a basketball game back in the day.--Urthogie 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the rapper Ras Kass holds this interpretation. I'm adding this source.--Urthogie 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ras Kass's opinion is just as credible as Lulzatron's if you ask me. Interestingly, nobody has really entertained the possibility that the lyrics were written with a double entendre in mind. In that sense, I think Lulzatron's interpretation is closer to the truth, but that is not to say that it is inappropriate to point out the historical inaccuracy. --  Randall00  Talk 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't attribute ideas to people that aren't notable, like mr lulzatron.--Urthogie 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't you add a note or some such rot saying, "However, some argue that he's actually fucking stupid and doesn't actually believe that guns existed back in the days of Alexander the Great" with a citation needed tag? In a few days I'll get around to actually citing some source. Not my top priority.

Urthogie, you cannot argue that your interpretation of lyrics is not disputed. -- GR40
 * You'll need a source to prove that.--Urthogie 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My source is all the people that disagree with you and their interpretations which are mentioned on the talk page. Besides, interpretation of lyrics counts as an opinion, not a fact.  Opinions do not belong in encyclopedias.


 * Only Reliable sources are allowed to be used. Wikipedia editors are not considered reliable/notable.--Urthogie 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well your interpretation isn't reliable either. If you can find a quote from Nasir Jones that gives his meaning behing those lyrics and it matches your interpretation, then it is reliable and belongs on Wikipedia. -- GR40


 * Ras kass is used a source already.--Urthogie 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He is not reliable either. It is an opinion. --GR40

See Reliable sources. He is a reliable opinion for what a rap song is about.--Urthogie 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rapped before so that would make me a reliable source too, wouldn't it.


 * No, because you're not a notable individual. Reliable sources and Notability.--Urthogie 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie: I'm calling you out.
Why are you so insistent the Historical Inaccuracies section stays? You've been watching this article like a hawk to ensure the section remains intact. PROTIP: After 5 people try to remove the section in protest against it and you're the only one defending it, you're probably wrong. It's not necessary to have on this page. TAKE IT OFF DAMNIT. Lulzatron 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


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

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

I feel Urthogie's contention is due to the fact that he wants this to coincide with the article on Egypt and Race, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this article nor is his sources reliable.Taharqa 03:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to wrap my head around the reasoning for the insistence on this text insertion too, but it still makes no sense. The line is "The song claims that Alexander the Great shot off the Sphinx of Giza's nose", is there really a thought that this is a literal historical claim that must be responded to?  Shall we go over to the Mama Said Knock You Out page and try to prove or disprove whether LL Cool J's mother really did incite him to commit a violent act? Tarc 12:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How is another major rapper not a reliable source for the meaning of a lyric? Someone please explain this.--Urthogie 21:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because he raps as well does not make him an expert on lyrical meanings of other people's songs. And for pity's sake, the whole damn premise that you're pushing is just plain asinine.  A history text that contained inaccuracies would be deserving of a refutation section, as it'd be reasonable to assume that people are reading the book to learn, y'know, facts.  Making the same assumptions of a rap song is ridiculous, no matter how many bloggers and unreliable sources you find who share this fringe opinion.  Tell ya what; when you can find a reliable source of Nas himself saying "yea, I think ol' Alex tried to shoot dat nose off and I rapped about it", then feel free to put it back in.  Otherwise, it appears that community opinion here is not in your favor. Tarc 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is a mainstream rapper not a reliable secondary source for the meaning of mainstream rap lyrics. Thank you, --Urthogie 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is abundantly clear that you are not even remotely listening to the opinion of others here, and only intend to vandalize the article. Tarc 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of assuming bad faith and accusing me of vandalism, how about you answer my question here.--Urthogie 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The question was already answered above. Typing it out a 2nd time would not be a productive use of my time. Tarc 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Just because he raps as well does not make him an expert on lyrical meanings of other people's songs." I asked, "why not?"  Please back up that assertion with a quote from policy which would rule out this type of thing.--Urthogie 19:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your question has no relevance to the issue at hand. The primary problem here is you taking this song's lyrics literally, and feeling that a poor source that only tangentially mentions the song at all is somehow needed to "refute" the lyrics.  Its dumb, and a part of some half-baked point you're trying to make stemming from your revert war / pissing match over at Race and ancient Egypt.  It just isn't going to fly here. Tarc 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're unable to back up your assertion about policy with a quote from policy which would rule out this type of thing?--Urthogie 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with you? The source you cite only mentions the song in a passing, off-hand manner.  That is NOT suitable to use as a source, and even if it was, it does NOT even support the claim you are trying to insert into this goddamned article.  You are doubly wrong, and this is really getting tiring. Tarc 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please quote the policy which says that part of an answer in an interview can't be used as a source if its said in passing.
 * Please avoid personal attacks.--Urthogie 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^I didn't see that as a personal attack Urthogie..

I feel that this is Original Research since he's making claims that aren't provided in his obscure, secondary source. Neither is Ras Kass or "Epinions" notable, ras kass has never been signed as a major artist and has been "underground" his entire career and "Epinions" is just some website with no authority as an encyclopedic source. These types of things are never used as a source and these views aren't widely held and/or mainstream view. It is in very bad taste to include that into the article..Taharqa 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh... so you want an "encyclopedic" source that analyzes the historical inaccuracies of a rap song!?! LOL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * No. What I'd want to see is this section omitted entirely.  It is a creation of both Urthogie's original research and poor understanding of what this non-WP:RS is actually saying.  There are so many policy avenues to take in opposing the insertion of this "info; it's like a smörgåsbord. Tarc 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

From Reliable sources:

"The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another."

It says right there that there is no fine line between a reliable source and an unreliable source as you put it. We are talking about a hiphop song here. Therefore hiphop websites are relevent to the article. Secondly, the information is cited and therefore is not original research. The myth of the Sphinx's nose being shot off is also mentioned on Race and ancient Egypt. Wait, I take that back. It was blanked out by one of your sockpuppets.

If you want to debate then be specific. All your arguments are just generalizations.

^One source directs us to a site full of people giving their opinions(like an web chat forum), which is not reliable.. Neither is Ras Kass as he isn't authoritative, not to mention that he's taken out of the context of the interview to simply make a point, which is OR.. Along with the extra rhetoric about guns, etc..Taharqa 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculously absurd. From this point on, vandalism warnings should just be issued to either this IP user or anyone else who persists in inserting this blatantly false/misleading information. People are trying to concoct an issue out of nothing, citing "sources" that do not even say what they are claiming to say. Tarc 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, please quote the policy which says that part of an answer in an interview can't be used as a source if its said in passing. By the way Taharqa, I didn't add "epinions" and I think it should be removed for not being reliable.--Urthogie 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious, what a troll that Urthogie was. What took so long to get this cleaned up. What an irritating idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.211.250 (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Can (Nas song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015153533/http://music.ign.com/articles/400/400442p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/400/400442p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)