Jump to content

Talk:Me Against the World

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMe Against the World has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
November 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

"Comments on some tracks"

[edit]

I have removed the entire "Comments on some tracks" section, which was basically someone's reviews of all the songs on the album. Such a section is POV by nature and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 02:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

This album is a dramatic shift away from 2Pac's earlier works, where he was arguably still struggling to come to terms with his powers as a rapper and social commentator. This album is deeply introspective, and we see Pac wondering aloud about how he has gotten to this point in career and beginning to fear his own death.
Intro is a somewhat long introduction, though it has a smooth beat. It mostly deals with the robbery and shooting of Shakur a few months before the album's release, and sheds some light on what Tupac thought of all the events.
If I Die 2 Nite is one of 2Pac's many musings about his own death, probably inspired by his near-brush with death. He seems bold, "with no remorse".
Me Against the World is one of the best tracks on this album, with 2Pac musing about his sudden dearth of friends. Very nice female singer in the background strengthens a good beat, and Dramacydal has some good lines as well.
So Many Tears is incredible. It features a powerful, hard-hitting beat that is rarely seen outside of 2Pac's final work. 2Pac is reminiscing about all of the trials he's had to go through to become a star, envisioning himself becoming a faceless body in the not-too distant future. The lyrics in here are downright eery considering Shakur's untimely death, "My every move is a calculated step/ To bring me closer, to embrace an early death/...Please Lord, forgive me for my sins/ Cause here I come"
Temptations also has a very nice beat. 2Pac's theme here seems to be of his life as a player, having fun, although he says "Even though I'm known for my one night stands/ I wanna be an honest man". Pac talks about women, and his relationsips with and respect for them.
Young Niggaz is a decent track, mostly consisting of Pac reminiscing about being young. Old School falls along the same lines.
Lord Knows is a good example of religious themes in Shakur's work. It features his vocals double-tracked in a production move aimed to amplify the feeling of intensity.
Heavy in the Game is perhaps the most underrated track on the album. It features a spectacular beat, the enchanting (though largely incomprehensible) Jamaican-accented Lady Levi doing a lot of lyrics, and Richie Rich with some strong lyrics. 2Pac's lyrics are quite powerful in this track, and they are mostly about street life.
Dear Mama is a gut-wrenchingly emotional track. Though the lyrics and beat are clean and simplistic, it is definitely the most moving piece in the album. It is all about Tupac's mother, Afeni Shakur, who raised him and his half-brother and half-sister mostly singlehandedly. The track is in stark contrast to some of Shakur's more thug-oriented work.
It Ain't Easy is a solid, yet often overlooked track. Pac's words are depressingly truthful on the hardships of life. He delves into the political and social foundations of his struggle, mentioning Bill Clinton in a negative light. He drops some autobiographical hints of note, including his earlier fall into drug dealing and life on the streets and his fear of going on a "long vacation" to jail.
Can U Get Away is an oddity for the album. In the dialogue of the track, a boyish sounding Tupac coaxes "Abby", who is caught in an abusive relationship. Even when Tupac starts laying down the rap slow and smooth, he has lost his traditionally deep, sometimes angry, voice of a thug who has been through too much. Can U is a soothing, romantic track.
In Fuck the World, the violent side of 2Pac once again emerges. He is presumably expressing his anger at being indicted for numerous offenses and let down by his friends.

If you want to make the tracks a bit more specific, then Dramacydal featured in Track 3, "Me Against the World" and Track 15 "Outlaw". As well as this, Richie Rich featured in Track 7 "Heavy in The Game". Might want to add those in :)

Amaru Entertainment

[edit]

It is an Amaru Entertainment album, look at the back cover. License2Kill 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA Certification

[edit]

I remember wikipedia saying that Me Against The World was certified 4x platinum. But currently on the Tupac Shakur article, it says it's 2x. Anyone got a source to find out?

Simple Plan

[edit]

Me Against the World is also the name of a Simple Plan song

....So? --- 72.142.212.28 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
....so? He means is that the title of the article directs to this song and not the simple plan song Pathfinder2006 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Meagainsttheworldcover.jpg

[edit]

Image:Meagainsttheworldcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

This is clearly not NPOV.

This was not a pop-rap record in any way, and it had been around since at least 87 with hammer and vanilla ice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.224.220 (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the background section entirely, as it had no references and didn't really tell much about the background of the album or artist. WikiGuy86 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Me Against the World/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article as time comes on. I'll be editing things which I feel I can edit without having to do any real extensive knowledge of the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General comments:
Infobox:

  • I realize Allmusic states March 14, 1995 but this book states "February 27, 1995". Which is it?
  • "November 1994 – January 1995" needs a citation as it's not discussed in the article when it was recorded.
  • "Mobb Music" seems to re-direct to West Coast Rap which is already it's own article listed in the article. Perhaps this genre should be removed?
  • WP:Albums suggests to drop the term "Records" at the end of the Labels section in the infobox, so this should read as "Interscope/Atlantic" rather then "Interscope/Atlantic Records".
  • There should be more consistency in the infobox review section. The reviews should be alphabetized (I'll leave it up to you whether Christgau is under "R" for Robert or "C" for Christgau" and perhaps you should add dates to when the original review was written.
  • That The Source review should be removed as it linking to a non-reputable source.
  • Those singles in the infobox have very specific dates to when they were released but the citations at the bottom of the page aren't so specific on what day they were released. Can these be cited? Otherwise change it to only their specific month.


Intro paragraph:

  • well received by critics and fans: the critics line is alright although Rolling Stone, Christgau, and Entertainment Weekly didn't seem that crazy about it. Maybe it should be generally well received on it's initial release, then state later reviews, and album "best of listings" to state how it was seen in later years. Also, you can't really cite fan enthusiasm on wikipedia, even with album sales, as it's basically impossible to cite that everyone who bough the album, really enjoyed it.
  • "Amaru Entertainment, the label owned by 2Pac's mother Afeni Shakur, has since gained its rights." This needs citation and is not mentioned again in the article. Can we get a citation for this?
  • "soaring to the number one spot upon its release", "soaring" sounds a little biased when stating that it simply "debuted" or "charted" would be more appropriate.


Background:

  • "However, the young artist" try to avoid using terms like "However" when it could be said as "Shakur did not have much time to celebrate his accomplishments..."
  • "In the summer of 1993". Be careful with using terms like "summer" which means different times of the year for someone who would be reading this in Australia. If you can find an article marking a more specific date that would be great but failing that, change it to a more simple "In 1993".
  • "whom the artist" change this to Shakur as it could be confusing if you are suggesting that the Hughes brother or Shakur is what we are talking about.
  • "In light of the way Shakur felt his image was being portrayed by the general press and public". The citation doesn't really remark that was the reason that he chose the title other then it was going to be titled that. Can you find a citation where he explains the naming of the previous title?


Production:

  • Could you cite the date as well when that review was written from RapReviews.com? It might be good to note that this was not an initial critical reaction to the production, but one taken years after 2pac's death and album release.
  • Since Jon Parales doesn't even have a wiki article, you may want to note that he was a reviewer for the New York Times.
  • Adding the dates both the EW and New York Times reviews were written would be good too.


Lyricism:

  • "On the track "Can U Get Away," Shakur attempts to woo the woman who's managed to gain his affections away from an abusive relationship." needs citation explaining the song's theme.


Singles:

  • ""So Many Tears" was the second single from the album, released four months after the first in June". That's a bit confusing and I don't fully understand what's going on. Can this be re-phrased?


Recpetion:

  • "Since it was released while he was in prison, Shakur became the first (and remains the only) artist to ever have a number one album while serving a prison sentence." I'd say change that to "...became the first and only artist..." but we also need a citation for this statement.
  • "legendary rock artist" sounds a pinch biased, perhaps re-phrase it to "popular rock artist" which is more appropriate.
  • the citation also notes that it went double platinum by December. That should be pointed out as well.
  • I realize the links to the rolling stone and Robert Christgau reviews are already linked at the top, but they should be cited at the bottom too. It might be a good idea to clairfy what reviews were the initial critical reception and which ones are reviews made much later on the album.
  • That The Source review does NOT have a good citation. Rateyourmusic has user submitted reviews and lists and it isn't a reputable source. Try to find a better cite for that.


Accolades:

  • Cduniverse.com wasn't noted as a reliable source for citing things. I got caught on this for my GA nom for Homogenic a while back. Might try to find a citation through googlebooks, like here


External links

  • There's no real need for another link to this review which is already linked in the album's review section at the top. So it should be removed.

That's all I can get through for now. Clean up some of these problems and I'll give it another look through within a week. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as the nominator has computer problems and no progress is being made, I will fail this. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Me Against the World/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See Notes below regarding lists.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers major sections: Background, Production, Composition, Reception, Tracks, Charts, Personnel.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    1 image used: valid fair-use rationale
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Notes
Re-review
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See Notes below regarding lists.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers major sections: Background, Production, Composition, Reception, Tracks, Charts, Personnel.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    1 image used: valid fair-use rationale
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Notes
  • 1. Prose + MoS
    • Me Against the World, released while Shakur was imprisoned, made an immediate impact on the charts, debuting at number one, and making Shakur the first artist to have an album debut at the top of the Billboard 200 while serving time in prison. - tense shift (released, made, debuting, making), this can also be improved by splitting the long sentence about aspects into two shorter sentence each about one aspect: the album on the charts and Shakur being in prison.
    • In the documentary Tupac: Resurection...his favorite album he made. - this is from the lead. Is this point made + referenced somewhere in the article?
    • ... due to omitting the law. - this is unclear. What is 'omitting the law'?
    • According to Shakur, the album...reflective than his previous efforts. - these last 2 sentences of 'Background' seem really out-of-place in the same paragraph as Shakur's personal/professional background. They would be better placed in their own paragraph or in the 'Composition' section.
    • Shakur attempts to woo the woman who's managed to gain his affections away from an abusive relationship. - (1) who's → who has (2) woo? what exactly does 'woo' mean? is that the best word here? (3) "his affections away from an abusive relationship" it is unclear who is in the abusive relationship.
  • In Composition, a one-sentence paragraph is not a sign of good writing. While they are fine in novels (creative writing), in WP's more formal writing paragraph should contain more than one sentence to develop a particular point or idea (whereas a sentence is simply a statement).
  • What are "Unused Tracks"? This was in the article when you nominated it and it is back now.

Young Niggaz

[edit]

In the booklet notes that come with the Me Aginst the World album a singer that goes by 'G. Money' is credited for singing the hook on Young Niggaz. I think he should be listed as a featured artist. In the tracklisting section under performers, next to 'Shakur'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.80.178 (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Me Against the World

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Me Against the World's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sales":

  • From Loyal to the Game: "Tupac Month: 2Pac's Discography". Retrieved May 27, 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • From Do for Love: "Best-Selling Records of 1998". Billboard. 111 (5). BPI Communications Inc.: 75 January 30, 1999. ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved June 3, 2015.
  • From R U Still Down? (Remember Me): Caulfield, Keith (March 13, 2015). "Billboard 200 Chart Moves: 'Hozier' Has Sold a Half-Million". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved March 14, 2015.
  • From The Lion King (soundtrack): Paul Grein (April 30, 2014). "Chart Watch: Sell 14K Albums, Make The Top 10". Yahoo Music.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Me Against the World. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Me Against the World. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G-funk

[edit]

Why isn't this album considered G-funk? The LP has a style that could be considered the genre. It's got "funky" production, the synthesizers, and the overall attitude of a G-funk LP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souljia 1991 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Song/album/band genres are, for whatever reason, a point of contention on Wikipedia. (In fact, we have probably a dozen or so banned editors repeatedly resurfacing with new sockpuppet accounts and/or new IP addresses to continue the battles for particular genres they feel it is somehow vitally important that the world agree with them apply/do not apply to particular songs/albums/artists.)
As a result, we've codified our approach to genres. Essentially, there are two ways to establish a genre for a song/album/artist. The easiest is to find independent reliable sources that directly state the song/album/artist's genre. A few tricky parts here: 1) The source must be a reliable source (explained in detail at WP:IRS). A shortcut here is to go to obvious sources: Rolling Stone, Spin, Entertainment Weekly, etc. and look for reviews of the song or album or retrospectives on the artist. 2) You will find sources that assign genres that you don't agree with. Intellectual honesty would have you add those to the article as well. 3) Particularly with older songs/albums/artists, but also some newer ones, sources might not state a genre, even an obvious one.
If you are unable to find reliable sources for the genre, you can A) drop it or B) try to build a consensus on the article's talk page. If you suggest a genre on the article's talk page and other editors agree with you, you can add it based on that. Realize, of course, that it will take some time for a reasonable number of editors to respond. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Me Against the World. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Me Against the World

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Me Against the World's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "xxlmag":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019 dispute over lead

[edit]

I recently revised the article, but my version of the lead was reverted because I allegedly made "several mistakes", and have now been taught, "No need to make unimproved changes" [diff]. This concerns me for a few reasons. One, as I didn't introduce new information to the lead, but instead trimmed the lead, my putative mistakes remain in the lead, I contend. Two, the reversion has restored poor English composition: wordiness, redundancy, mispunctuation, poor syntax, and such. Three, it restores debatable assertions, some narrowly specific, some vaguely broad, and, either way, possibly speculative, about Tupac's motivation and inspiration. Frankly, it also reads almost like bloggish hagiography. — Occurring (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Me_Against_the_World&oldid=1211263899"