Talk:All Eyez on Me/Archive 1

Reception needs to be reworked

Why is the reception section just a collection of quotes? Most do not even comment on the quality of the album or are particularly relevant.

Musician (6/96, p.90) - "...gangsta rappers pretty much share the values of their Republican detractors: the emphasis on making money, the righteousness of bearing arms, the wonderfulness of consumption, respect for hierarchy and loyalty to one's own as overriding principles..."

The section needs to be in paragraph form and more direct. I've tried to get something going, but am having trouble finding sources...

All Eyez on Me is generally considered a lyrical departure from Tupac's previous albums. Rolling Stone reviewer Laura Jamison criticized this move as "[surrendering] wholesale to his thug side" and the album's lack of more complex, original tracks. However, the album's beats are praised as "brilliantly varied" and a noticeable improvement from past works.

--Rodahue (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the reception section considering it was too biased and poorly written.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDaddyKaneNr1 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 8 March 2009

Request for expansion

This album really needs to be expanded. How can the MMLP and Illmatic be so long, and this album only half a page?-Shabad

what's wrong with the formatting? Tuf-Kat

Nothing on IE6 or Mozilla 1.4. What does it look like on your browser? The page contains tabs and tables. Is one of these causing the problems? Angela

I've placed an NPOV tag on this page as I feel it reads more like a music review, and needs to be checked for NPOV. Mike H 02:34, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Shame on you, Mike H, for not adding anything of value to the page yourself, instead squabbling over whether the view is unbiased or not. How about getting in and doing some real editing next time, instead of leaving the page to rot (track listing lacks newlines when rendered in Firefox)? Yes, the original reviewer was just an excited fan writing a fairly biased review. It's up to you to edit or add where necessary. Actions speak louder than words Schmiddy 04:39, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

The article definately needs a ton of expansion. Illmatic has a huge page, yet other classic albums like Me Against the World, All Eyez on Me, and The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory don't License2Kill 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Alizée

I have removed the link to singer Alizée. Surely 'Pac was refering to a drink. Tim Ivorson 11:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

hey i checked the RIAA website and based on the info there All Eyez on Me sold more than Life after Death Gmanx18 2:59,01 October 2005

"Comments on some tracks" removed.

This section was removed for purposes of POV. Perhaps someone can rewrite it so that it doesn't come off as a biased review, and more of an objective overview of the album. --FuriousFreddy 13:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Is this album also the best selling indie album?(this album was released through Koch Records not interscope)- Elpaisa1 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

i got another question why does the RIAA site says that DEATH ROW/INTERSCOPE as the label?i have the album and i can not see the the interscope logo but he says this in the booklet One love to Death Row, Interscope and ...etc. so i'm really puzzled about the labels. it says the following below of the back of the album:

(P)&(C) 1995,1996 Death Row Recording LLC - Exclusively Manufactured and Distributed by KOCH Records. - Elpaisa1 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I still want to know how Interscope Records was involved in this release Elpaisa1 02:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

interscope provided funds to Death Row Records early on in it's conception and also managed the production and distribution of albums, like DRR subleased that part out or something, or at least that is the impression i got from the article

Hatnote for All Eyez on Me (Monica album)

Why was the hatnote for All Eyez on Me (Monica album) removed? Readers who want to know about the Monica album are led to this article if they enter "All Eyez on Me" into the search box, so for their sake we need to have a way of directing them to the appropriate page. We should either leave the hatnote or move this article to All Eyez on Me (2Pac album) and create a disambiguation page. Extraordinary Machine 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that was a mistake, keep the hatnote.

NPOV

"The album has become one of the most influential albums in hip hop history and is often considered one of the crowning achievements of 1990s rap." "27 track hip-hop tour de force" etc. Habnabit 16:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Which part of that do you consider POV? It is certified 9x platinum; NPOV doesn't mean we have to lie about highly successful and influential albums. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"27 track hip-hop tour de force" is frankly idiculous. It is a legendary and nearly diamond album, but "tour de force" never belongs in a description, let alone as a substitute for a pronoun. Have edited to that it doesn't keep banging on about how famous it is. Yanksta x 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This article still clearly has a problem with POV language. Also, what goofball wikilinked "sorrowful"? That's a She-Ra character. Ford MF 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of reversion of edits by User:License2Kill

• Referencing online news sources that Wiki readers can actually look at is preferable to only "The Source, August 2006". And if magazines that have no electronic compnent are to be references in any context, a proper citation should be made. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• Calling it the "highest selling album in hip hop" is patently untrue. Any number of news sources, including the one I cited that you deleted, will confirm that All Eyez on Me is the second best selling hip hop record of all time.
• "Diamond Album" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized.
• Saying "rivals" consider All Eyez on Me one of the greatest rap albums of all time is a shakey proposition. Tupac is not a universally worshipped figure in the music, even among sympathetic critics.
• Saying it "has become an influential album" is an unnecessary use of the perfect tense. It is an influential album.
• Reverted extreme POV language.
• Mostly I'm just reverting an unexplained revert that re-introduces poorer organization and bad sources, without explanation. When you edit an article, particularly when one is performing a mass revert of new content, writing and sources, it is considered polite to provide an edit summary. Disputes can be held on the talk page. Ford MF 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

All of which sounds eminently reasonable to me. I believe a more accurate criticism than "extreme POV language" would be "violations of WP:PEACOCK" - otherwise, I support these edits pending further discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I never knew that was there. Good to have it for future reference. Ford MF 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I do agree with some of your edits, I believe your edits have lowered the quality of this article. Of course there was some stuff that needed to be removed. I have never read the entire article.

• All Eyez on Me is not a Diamond album, and it has not sold 9 million copies. It has sold 7 million copies and that was confirmed in a recent issue of The Source. Your source for sales is by far outdated. The article was written in 1998.

• Saying that people "Consider" it to be one of the greatest albums is not POV language and it is completely true. There is no need to downplay success License2Kill 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, your source is newer and it says less albums were sold? The Yahoo article is older, true, but easily corroborated. You can use the link KillerChihuahua provided to check the RIAA website. All Eyez On Me has in fact sold 9 million copies and was certified diamond. And the fact that it is the second best selling rap album ever is notable and does not deserve deletion. (And again, "Diamond Record" is not a proper noun, and does not get capitalized.) Perhaps the Source just has bum info.

No one is downplaying success. There appears to be a small consensus about "greatest album" and "tour de force" here--from myself, KillerChihuahua, Yanksta x and Habnabit--that it is POV language. Calling something unequivocally "the greatest" is like saying "the best", which, again, is something Wikipedia does not do. Cite critics, please. Not one's own opinion. And really, there is no single article in Wikipedia that should ever contain the phrase "greatest album ever".

I hate to be the jerk who cries "vandalism", but all of your last half dozen edits on this article have been to delete perfectly legitimate data.

This is getting dangerously close to an edit war transgressing the three revert rule. I propose we dig up some arbitration from an admin. Ford MF 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have been counselled by a sage Wikipedian to let it go, which is good advice to avoid edit wars. I'm removing this page from my watchlist. If another editor takes exception to the future edits to this article, they can revert them themselves. Ford MF 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

9x Platinum means it sold 4.5 million copies. You deleted a lot of content from the article that is perfectly legitimate License2Kill 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was this reverted back even though some of that information is false. The album did not sell 9 million copies License2Kill 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RIAA says it did. RIAA trumps other sources on albumn sales; they are regarded as an authority. Terminology and phrasing you can work out here on talk; but 9 Million is the sales figure from the most reliable source. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That was last updated in 1998 and a credible source says otherwise License2Kill 12:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the article I referenced is from 1998, but its information is backed up by the contemporary stats on the RIAA site that KillerChihuahua provided a link to. I reckon their stats are the most authoritative in this case. Also, 9x platinum is indeed 9 million records. See RIAA certification.

Although that article introduces a whole new level of confusion, as it says a diamond album = 10,000,000 sales, which I think we can all agree All Eyez on Me did not reach, right? Ford MF 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All Eyez on Me is a double album, therefore 500,000 = 1x Platinum. That means 9x Platinum equals 4.5 million sales which is not only a well known fact, but it states it right in the article. So in the June issue of The Source they said it sold over 7,000,000 copies meaning it would be Diamond (14x Platinum). The RIAA stops updating sales of old albums unless you pay for a recount License2Kill 03:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice if you had mentioned the whole double-album reckoning thing from the start! Just for a future FYI, this isn't a general rule for ALL double-albums, just ones with a total running time over 100 minutes. e.g. the new Christina Aguilera record, while a double album, does not qualify. Also, I still don't trust the Source's figures vs. the RIAA's website, sorry. Ford MF 06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You actually think that sales figures that haven't been updated for 8 years are accurate? Please. The Source is a very respectable reference, plus Danny Boy said that it sold 7 million (who get's an accounting) License2Kill 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The source isn't that well respected after the Benzino incident. And magazine writers get things wrong all the time. Either way it was certified 9x platinum by the RIAA in 98. I say remove the part about selling 7 million. The writer probably got the information from the RIAA and assumed 7x platinum meant 7 million like so many of you did.Drumac 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I got it!

KillerChihuahua, License2Kill, we're all right! Seriously! Here's the thing:

Because of a quirk in its reckoning of album sales, the RIAA counts each sale for a double-album longer than 100 minutes twice. Because they're more expensive and contain significantly more material.

So, technically, only about 4.5 million units of All Eyez on Me were sold. But it was certified 9x platinum for being the equivalent of 9 million sales. See also RIAA certification.

Part of me feels like this is cheating, though. There are any number of more contemporary rap artists who've sold a hell of a lot more than 4.5 million records. So calling All Eyez on Me one of the "best selling rap albums ever" rings a little false. How to integrate this into the article? Ford MF 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Major kudos for figuring this out. We're talking about a rewrite of the intro here, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All Eyes On Me

Hey there License2Kill, I trust you read WP:WEASEL before reverting my tag. The sentence that reads "The album has become one of the most influential albums in hip hop history and is often considered one of the crowning achievements of 1990s rap" is loaded with weasel words. Its without question the best example of weasel words I have ever seen.

Lets start with "one of the most influential" - Well who has it influenced? Who has said "This album influenced me". How can we quantify if more people have said that about this album versus any other album in hip hop history? Did a great many major publications (Rolling Stone, Spin, Source, Vibe, XXL, Blender, etc) call it "one of the most influential"? If so, we Need to source that. It may be many peoples opinion that this is true (hell, its my opinion that its true), but to put it in an encyclopedia article, we need a poll to prove that.

Moving on to "is often considered one of the crowning achievements of 1990s rap" again, according to who? is there a plethora of rap artists clamoring to crown albums by other artists? Has anyone of note actually called it a "crowning achievement" ever? For this statement to be encyclopedic it needs as many sources to prove its point as the word "often" indicates.

But how often is often anyways? Setting aside the fact that it is physically impossible for something to be "often considered" (a person either considers it a crowning achievement or he doesn't, he doesn't often think it is but sometimes think it isn't. The correct term would be widely, but that, of course, is another weasel word), does it indicate like 50 people think that? or 5000? 50 million? most important artists? all important artists except Bad Boy veterans? I personally don't think its even the best 2pac album, doesn't that make the statement wrong?

A statement like this CAN NOT exist unless there is a source with people actually saying this. Thats what WP:WEASEL is all about, and thats what this whole paragraph repeatedly violates. I count 6 weasel phrases in just this sentence, I've pointed out three so you get an idea what I mean. FYI: The worst offender is where it says "Tour de Force" - that definitely cant be said without a source.

The whole article badly needs a rewrite. Every sentence in the first paragraph except the last one makes at least one major grammatical error, usually by leaving out words. The fourth sentence is especially bad, starting with "Although the album has sold more than seven million copies", but never saying what the "Although" is referring to - what did or didn't happen?

I hope you understand now why I added that box, and why I'm gonna have to go ahead and rewrite parts of the article tomorrow.--CastAStone|^(talk) 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to put this on my page, stuff like this is discussed in the articles talk page. You are getting far too literal with this, as another admin once said, there is no need to downplay success. The album is one of the top selling albums in hip-hop, of course it is one of the most influential. Try reading the featured article, Illmatic, there is no source for "today one of the most celebrated and influential albums in hip hop history." I will add sources though License2Kill 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinion as fact?

"The album is one of the best albums in hip hop history" uh, that's fine if you think so, or even if it's widely considered so, but here it is stated as pure fact. That's a bit ridiculous. I, for one, do not think it is one of the best albums in hip hop history, or even 2Pac's best. I thinnk I'll change it to "is considered by certain music publications such as XXL as one of the best albums in hip-hop history". i dont know if that's the best, but it's MUCH better than it is currently. Seriously, just because it was mentioned as really good once in the opinion of one magazine isnt enough to state it as a fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.64.11 (talk • contribs) 13:53, April 5, 2007 (UTC)

Impact and reception?

I think that this article would greatly benefit if content were added on the impact and reception of the album itself - among critics, fans, other artists, in the media, etc. This kind of information is frequently present in other articles in music, film, and television. The album itself is obviously very influential, and it even says this in the introduction (as it should). If the article went into impact and reception details, this influence would be demonstrated for the readers and it would solve a lot of the POV/peacock issues mentioned by other editors. I'm not too experienced in writing new content; can anyone assist with this? *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

AMG Link

I put a link to the All Music Guide review because all album articles should have one. Right on. Soundgarden 09:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

K-Ci and JoJo

K-Ci and JoJo are listed as collaborators on "How Do You Want It" (Book 1, Track 5). But the Personnel section includes Jo-Jo (which I disambiguated to Joel "Jo-Jo" Hailey), but not K-Ci (Cedric "K-Ci" Hailey). I don't know if K-Ci actually performed on the album, but if this is an oversight, I thought I should mention it.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they were both on the track. I don't know why only one would be credited License2Kill 13:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Method Man's verse on Got My Mind Made Up

Any info on why Method Man's verse is partially censored? Here are the first four bars from his verse (the words in brackets are edited out of the audio, even in the explicit version of the song):

"Fuck you losers, while you fake jacks I makes maneuvers like Hitler, stickin up [jews] wit german [lugers] The Mr. Meth-Tical from Staten Isle Will be back after this mess-age don't touch tha dial"

I can see how it would offend some people, but so would much of the other lyrics in the album. So anyone know of any backstory on this censoring? --Josh1billion (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

2- pac is considered the best rapper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.0.167 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mike Mosley

He is listed as a race car driver that died in 1984, what has he done in producing an album made in 1996? JFonseka —Preceding comment was added at 06:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1st double cd in hiphop?

I thought All Eyez on Me was the 1st double cd in hiphop? Isn't it so? And if it is, shouldn't we mention it? Netrat (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Esham's Judgement Day came out in 1992. So, no, All Eyez on Me is not the first double album in hip hop. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

You're right, it was Judgement Day, even that article says it was also the first, and there cannot be two in first place: Judgement_Day_(album). Since it was released earlier and has a source, I'd venture to say that All Eyez on Me was indeed NOT the first. --Anthonysenn (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This recent CNN article regarding rapper T.I. makes some notes regarding Tupac and says All Eyez On Me was "the first double-disc album of original material in hip-hop history, according to Billboard"(about 3/4 the way down). Darkpoet (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's obviously not true, as noted above. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Inspectah deck on got my mind made up?

Why does is say that hes on the track? On the album it gives no credit nor does anywhere else on the internet except wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.239.211 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

answer: He got some vocals on this track, his part was outsorted for whatever reason, you can here him at 5:02 saying "INS the rebel" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.81.178 (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Album songs redirect?

Why do the songs in the album redirect to the main page ? Delvin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.193.224.180 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:All Eyez on Me/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) N A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: N All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. N No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS Lack song length that makes it lose the c-class. Not enough of album information is cited, chart positions need citations. The album's single section could be moved to the infobox and the review section should be written as prose instead of in point form. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)