Talk:Tupac Shakur

AI Tupac voice generator

Don't know if this is important enough to mention, but there's a web page that can be used to have Tupac's voice dubbed: [1] I don't see how he can have given his permission for his voice to be used, but maybe his heirs did. WiseWoman (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@WiseWoman: Probably would need to be mentioned in WP:RS to justify including any mention of it in the article. Sometimes external links are included in a special section at the end of articles, as is the case with this one: Tupac_Shakur#External_links. Because of potential copyright infringement, I would be against inclusion. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, please note that according to our article Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright: 'Copyright protection generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a "work for hire", then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.' However, as a paralegal--I am not an attorney and cannot give legal advice--Wikipedia is not a reliable source on law. There are better sources online and law does change and is often complicated by case law that can even vary by jurisdiction. Law libraries are good resources, but in the end if you want proper legal advice, you need to see an attorney who specializes in the appropriate field. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

personal interpretations

@HumansRightsIsCool https://theconversation.com/in-tupacs-life-the-struggles-and-triumphs-of-a-generation-79266 "Moviegoers this summer have enjoyed “All Eyez on Me,” the biopic of Tupac Shakur, one of the most iconic and influential musicians of the 20th century." Articles written by Jeffrey O.G. Ogbar, professor of history and popular music at the University of Connecticut. The article describes Tupac as one of the most influential musical artists of the 20th century, does not mention "one of the African-American artists." You have to stick to the sources Pier1999 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I just added a source which said he's one of the most influential black artists. Now I'm sticking to sources. Being black was a big part of tupacs career, he rapped about it, talked about it tons of times and was an activist for his own people, the fact that nowhere in this article says he's black is crazy HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

So I read the article you wrote, but it's not as authoritative a source as the article written by Jeffrey O.G. Ogbar. He does not report that he is one of the most influential African-American musical artists, but one of the most famous ones. However, your source does not delete an article written by an academic. Pier1999 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The article you cited is not written by an academic, while the one I cited months ago is written by one of America's leading academics in history and popular music. Also, as already written, it only reports that 2pac is one of the most famous African-American artists ever. I don't read influential writing. That said, a different source doesn't delete an authoritative source, I recommend you read the Wikipedia rules. Pier1999 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course there are rules. You can contact the administrators to have them explain it to you. Anyway I removed Gangsta rap in the lead, because it's already mentioned in the music genres and on the page. I don't understand why Tupac's lead has to have changes every week... Pier1999 (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• @HumansRightsIsCool: Yes, Wikipedia has a few rules called policies and guidelines. I explain on your talk page here: User_talk:HumansRightsIsCool#Yes._There_are_rules.... And FYI. I'm not an admin. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. I'll read it to make sure I don't break any rules HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Gangsta rap in the lead

@Cena332 In my opinion it is useless to write that in the final part of his career he did Gangsta rap, it is already written on the page. Otherwise we would have to write in the lead that he was a political and conscious rapper. But it's useless, it's already written in the genres and on the page Pier1999 (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cena332 In fact, I'll write more: most of 2pac's songs are political rap and conscious rap songs, only in the final part of his career did he do Gangsta rap. So it would be more appropriate to write political rap and conscious rap in the lead. Or write both political rap and gangsta rap. (As it is written in the Ice Cube lead for example). Pier1999 (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is already written in the contents of the article that he addressed say for example social injustice; but it's still included in the lead. I don't see a problem with including Gangsta rap respectively. He also did do gangsta rap before Death Row; (but when he got to Death Row it escalated) but yes he did had socially conscious songs like Keep Ya Head Up. I think this is already addressed in the lead by "His lyrical content has been noted for addressing social injustice, political issues and the marginalization of African-Americans". Cena332 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

African-americans or black americans in the lead

Okay, but let's write African-Americans then? Or do we leave black Americans? Pier1999 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll let you and HumansRightsIsCool discuss that, because that wasn't my issue. Cena332 (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've sent him a invite. Hopefully he responds. Cena332 (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

ok, thanks Pier1999 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't matter If it says "African-Americans" or "black Americans" they're pretty much the same thing. Most African-Americans are considering black and most people considered black around the globe have African ancestors HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why i wrote black americans and replaced African-Americans HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

sorry In my first message i meant "considered" not "considering" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@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)

@Cena332 it should say Tupac is African American in the lead HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I would stick to the sources as Wikipedia's rules indicate; but i would like to get editors, ActionHeroesAreReal and Confuxtion involved so we can reach a consensus going forward. Cena332 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

also tell me how my edits don't follow sources HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

It should say Tupac is African American because it's relevant to his music. I don't think Jay z raps about being black HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Tupac was a more conscious and political rapper than Jay-Z, but Jay-Z also made political/conscious rap songs. Pier1999 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)