This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Tupac 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.
Billy Garland (Ex Black Panther) was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 07 January 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Tupac Shakur. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of
hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
@
Confunxion There is no need to write in the lead: "one of the hip hop artists of his generation", because it is already written: "one of the most influential rappers of all time." Let's avoid repetitions that can lead to edit wars.
Pier1999 (
talk)
06:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
what action heros wants is "the source says African American, not people in the black community." He thinks we should copy sources word for word which is probably against wikipedia rules. And why does Confuxtion need to get involved? He was only complaining because the lead mentioned "African American" twice, so I wrote "people in the black community" so it wouldn't say the words "African American" twice, that was his only problem
HumansRightsIsCool (
talk)
22:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Rappers;
Biggie Smalls,
Nas and
Jay-Z leads do not start out as they are "African-American rappers". It’s that they are "American rappers". 2Pac we know he is African-American, you can see that in the Infobox, This doesn’t need to be self-explained, Your making to much of an issue out of this over nothing. --
Cena332 (
talk)
01:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh. I never listened to Jay-Z before. Only people I listen to is Eazy E, Biggie, and Tupac. Eminem is trash, Drake is trash, Kendrick is trash, youngboy is trash.
HumansRightsIsCool (
talk)
08:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove Makaveli as stage name
I suggest removing Makaveli as a stage name from the lead, and keep it in the other names section; as he never performed under the name Makaveli. Tupac's last concert was The House of Blues on July 4, 1996, and there he was still introduced as 2Pac.
Cena332 (
talk)
02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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.
⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
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.
⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)reply
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 Heartstalk06:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply