Talk:Biggie & Tupac

message: :Image:Biggie & Tupac.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Biggie & Tupac.jpg

message: A Radio interview is only partially referenced, is it this one?: "Nick Broomfield - Documenting Icons, In a Hardtalk Extra interview broadcast on Friday 1 April, Gavin Esler spoke to the pioneering British documentary film-maker Nick Broomfield", 4 April 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4408757.stm Lopifalko (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio Interview Reference

message: This article falls way below the mark for Wiki's neutrality guidelines. The article isn't really about the Documentary by Nick Broomfield, but about promoting Chuck Philips theories on what might have happened and discrediting any others, including this documentary. The intent was not to describe the Documentary objectively and unbiased.
--Naninnewetuah (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of article

message: Poole, both of Tupac's bodyguards (the 7 foot one as well as the one with cowboy clothes in the doc), Lil cease, AND hill all point the finger to Amir Muhammed et al (Mack, Suge, Baines, Perez). This is the one theory that has the most evidence. I think something should be mentioned about Clayton Hill's statements pasted below.
A few weeks ago, some dude came forward claiming that he knew who was involved in the murders of rappers 2pac and Biggie. Now another guy, Clayton Hill, has come forward and admitted that he was an accessory to the murder of The Notorious B.I.G and that he knows who carried out the hit. Hill is a former member of The Nation of Islam and is soon releasing his e-book ‘Diary of an Ex-Terrorist’. Hill names Dawoud Muhammad as the man who was responsible for shooting and killing B.I.G in Los Angeles over 14 years ago. Hill claims he was under orders from a “higher-up” at Muhammad Mosque #15 in Atlanta to collect the firearm used to murder Christopher Wallace. - See more at: http://www.kingsays.com/2011/07/06/the-guy-who-killed-biggie-was/#sthash.KnzDf0wE.dpuf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poole theory most correct one