Talk:Orlando Anderson

Untitled

I believe the article should either remove all parts that are unclear (with the citations needed), or clarified - or it should be deleted. As it stands now, it is total speculation, which should never be part of a wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged into Tupac's death somehow. why do you get a wikipedia page for being a gang member? If he weren't a suspect in Tupac's death he'd be of no importance — Preceding unsigned comment added by, 98.238.244.254 (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the article considerably removing links to the fan sites and instead linking to news archives or abstracts of newspaper stories. I have to say finding sources is easy, but trusting them is not. MTV, the Associated Press and others report two and three different versions of even the simplest of events or turns in the case. Sometimes it was best to read multiple sources or read stories much later in the timeline to try and understand who had their original reporting right. I must admit that I am becoming biased against the Sun reporter Cathy Scott. Her writings are all over the place and it seems she has based her career, somewhat, to covering this story - I'm suspect of a few details that she gives in a few of her articles.

Also it is hard to find sources now of information that for some people, because the whole event was so big, is common knowledge. Not that some of these items aren't true, but digging into the news accounts is difficult because of the time in which it happened, the web was just getting traction and newspapers were not putting all of their articles online. Wire reports are likely best because the events that made Mr. Anderson infamous are subject to so much speculation. The longer the article, the more speculation, if it is a book... don't even quote it here I'd suggest. JoeHenzi (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Also the problem with Cathy Scott's reporting in regards to Mr. Anderson in particular is that she is not from Compton and instead from Las Vegas. She reported incorrect information on Anderson's street name, where he was from and other things. Reporting on Anderson is best when it comes from LA reports it seems. (Wow, did the entire city of Las Vegas drop the ball on this event or what :)  ?)JoeHenzi (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

this article seems to be only editted by people biased against the man. He was never charged or even called a suspect by authorities, the article should reflect this wether 99% of Tupac's fans agree he did it or not. I just removed a blatently incorrect statement that said he was suspected, which was supported by a link saying

Las Vegas homicide detective Lt. Larry Spinosa said, "At this point, Orlando Anderson is not a suspect in the shooting of Tupac Shakur."

How could ANYONE interpret that to mean he was a supect!? It's ok to say that he is widely accused of it by media and the public, and that he did have legal issues in civil court, that is ok by wp: verify if its cited Smitty1337 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact he was arrested in sweeps that were related to the Tupac shooting, and this is noted in the article. I'm not biased against the man and removed the references to sites that were as well as being careful to not reference news sources that had obvious slants. Your first point is debunked by the linked news sources and the affidavit, whether based on a sound investigation or not, he was very much a suspect (and the primary suspect by Compton police more than Las Vegas who went back and forth on the issue even after clearing his name - which is where the sources get muddled). Please show us the link to the quote, I know it's there but I don't want to re-read all of those news stories again to be honest

it was. You even say he was detained... and he was detained as a suspect. In the linked interview he even says that he was an on-again-off-again suspect. I'm trying to be careful here, and to walk a fine line and keep the article objective, but two people have come by now and reversed edits that are verifiable (check tons of news stories with headlines that read "suspect arrested in connection..."). I mean I even changed the line that called him a Crip to "alleged" because we can only go on the assertion and his denial later to the media.

Please understand that this is not so easy to source or to verify because even the AP carried contradicting stories published the same day (did the gang sweep arrest 21, 22 or 23 'gang members'?). And again the news stories of this time were not being published online as many had no web-presence at the time of the events. This man is no doubt notable because the police told media he was "of interest" and he was always a focus of their investigations - if you are going to deny that just delete the article.

I'm not editing this page as a Tupac fan and have no vested interests, but even a budding police detective connects the events of that evening - why do people deny what anyone would see as a possible motive? I'm not writing here that the CIA or Suge shot Tupac - your suggestion I have bias because I have interest in these events (it's sensational, I'll admit) is upsetting. I tried to do heavy editing of the existing article which was ignored until now - I plan on giving it a rewrite as soon as possible to reflect the three types of information; known events not in dispute, events in dispute and the fallout of the speculation (which would be the biggest part of the story which isn't even alluded to here - Anderson thought it was important to make it known the media and publics belief affected his life in a real way and that story should be told here). JoeHenzi (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I'm just trying to argue - but there is a difference between being a suspect and being cleared as one. He may have been cleared after two days of questioning, but you don't get questioned for two days for being a guy who just happened to be in town. Since the events are basically unknown maybe it is best to provide as many of the facts as possible and then let the reader speculate? Maybe we can agree to phrase things as while cleared by the Las Vegas police in October of 1996 Orlando was detained and question in regards to the shooting of Tupac? I think removing items or statements is a bad move when the article needs more explanation and not less. Sorry to seem angry or whatnot, I just didn't like being called POV on a topic where I see two victims - both sets of events are tragic, I would not propose to libel Mr. Anderson. JoeHenzi (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The bias statement was about the content contradicting the source given. (which i updated today) it was not intended as a personal attack (especially since i didnt even look to see if it was one or multiple people, i just made a statement sorry if you took it that way). As for him being a "suspect" rather then a "Person of interest" which is different, I've not seen a source on that, but i have seen a source with a direct quote from a las vegas detective saying he was not which i quoted above in blockquotes. Yes i said he was detained, because thats not arrest which is what the article said. As for not being easy to source, that may be true, but if its not sourced then it needs to be removed. Difficulty in finding a source does not excuse the need for a source. I am not a Tupac fan, i couldnt name even 1 song he wrote. I just randomly edit articles i find via clicking stuff Smitty1337 (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I was careful to not put anything there that wasn't sourced, but also didn't duplicate reference links when two statements came from the same story but were in two places in the article to make the copy-edit make sense. Then again I also was getting tired too and I could have transposed something that I didn't mean to (or forgot where I read it exactly/got sources mixed up). My first step was to actually source what as marked as unknown and reword what I needed too. Do enough research and you'll find that it's hard to find out who in the police departments who investigated felt he was really connected, each jurisdiction contradicts itself at times. The affidavit (challenged by Anderson and his legal teams, of course) is the strongest evidence of police being suspect of Anderson. This statement I base on the legal purpose of the affidavit, it is necessary and is a tool in California to obtain search warrants (which were executed) and is signed by a judge after he/she feels it provides sufficient evidence to provide a search warrant, a detention for questioning, etc. I like Tupac songs but am not a fanatic and know the theorists, and see where their 'stories' are fiction. My interest in this topic is to do research on the issue only - I don't care much for the rumors, muddles your opinion. I plan to find reliable sources and where appropriate for WP place statements here that are verifiable and non-trivial. JoeHenzi (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

on a side note... it was actually pretty easy to find a source lol. Suge Knight: The Rise, Fall, and Rise of Death Row Records: The Story of Marion 'Suge' Knight, a Hard Hitting Study of One Man, One Company That Changed the Course of American Music Forever. Published book, Page 32 states he is a suspect. gonna go work that in now Smitty1337 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Be careful, read enough sources and you'll become a suspect. Maybe it should be noted that he was "a person of interest among others such as ...". For example "King Tut" of the Black Mafia in NYC was suspected and accused by Federal investigators.JoeHenzi (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

true there are lots of conspiracies, but the source is published and has a decent bibliography, and wikipedia is about verifiability not truthSmitty1337 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help JoeHenzi (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

streetgangs.com.....

this would appear to be selfpublished and as such not considered a reliable source. Please consider finding better sources if you are so inclined, i will review this site further to see if i can find anything that would redeem it to meet the standards of wp: rs Smitty1337 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you go on the URL alone it would appear that way but all the site has done is compiled actual news stories and reproduced them online (possible copyright issues aside, this is one of the best NPOV sources online). While they are all under the heading of 'more information' about Tupac, they aren't POV and are not opinion pieces (hell, this page is more reliable than the LA Times and the LV Sun I'd say! I shy away from Cathy Scott who points to Anderson early and often with no more evidence than what the police revealed). Again, it's hard because there isn't a lot of free sources of information online due to the time in which the events took place. The articles written years later are speculative and have doubtful reporting.

Again, this article has been abandoned somewhat and I've removed the links to the various 2pac fan sites and replaced them with actual news stories - where was everyone when it was a lot worse? Why the high horse by people who are just now visiting? People feel as if they have a duty to take care of a child they abandoned long ago. It's a work in progress, let's try to move it forward and not backward. JoeHenzi (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The article says at the bottom of the first paragraph 'he is the real killer'....wtf? fix that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.201.162 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does it say he's very handsome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.104 (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism. I just reverted it though. Smitty1337 (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Note: Cathy Scott's theory

Although someone added that Cathy Scott's theory implicates Orlando Anderson, it is not clear to me that this is correct. In her 2002 book on Pac, she reviews various theories of his murder including the Suge Knight/Death row theory before finally stating "Years after the primary investigations, it's still anyone's guess. No one was ever arrested but no one was ever ruled out as a suspect, either." She then concludes oddly enough that one theory "transcends all the others, and implicates the white-record-comany power brokers themselves." implicating the bosses of the Suge Knight label. The reference to her book in context doesn't make senseScholarlyarticles (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Orlando Anderson. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/tupac/090602aliby.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505065948/http://www.cathyscott.com/askarch.htm to http://www.cathyscott.com/askarch.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120910162950/http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/tupac/081800settle.html to http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/tupac/081800settle.html

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) 22:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

This assertion needs a citation: "he was a conscientious student who passed his exams and received good grades" -- seems like his mother or someone put this in here to make him look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.36.69.90 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)