Talk:The Marshall Mathers LP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I think that the quantity of quoted lyrics stretches the bounds of fair use. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Dante Alighieri

You can never have to much information on eminem. Why are you critisizing the hard work?!? He's slim shady, the real slim shady, all the other slim shadys are just imitating.

I agree it might be a bit much; I've been trying to keep it to a minimum (I think a lot of the quotes will go away as I work on it and fix the currently haphazard organization and all that). However, this album was heavily criticized for violence, profanity, sex and promoting drugs. Any summary would almost certainly be POV; the only neutral way to present the info is to quote exactly what he says and let the reader decide. (also, rap songs have a lot of words; it's probably not as large a proportion as it might seem) Tokerboy 23:57 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

You seem to have good intentions, but whether or not it's convenient or even desirable to quote such long passages, that has no bearing on it's legality. Now I'm not saying it DOES violate copyright (I'm certainly no expert), but as I understand it, selections that large are typically questionable. As for the article, I certainly respect your attempt to document this issue so thoroughly, good luck! --Dante Alighieri

2Pac 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job removing lots of the quoted material!! You've put a lot of time and effort into this. --Dante Alighieri

As long as the lyrics are not presented in their entirety, it can't be a copyvio, because it's not a copy of a huge text from another source. Besides, what's the big deal? I doubt anyone at Shady Records is gonna sue for having some of Em's lines on the site 2Pac 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So, the image of the album cover... what's the status on stuff like that? Does an album cover, movie poster (see 8 Mile) or other promotional material fall under "fair use"? I find it hard to believe. -- ESP 22:42 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why does the link to the Source review show BCC's last album rating and review? --Meph1986 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Pulsion/Kill You Case 2 disclaimer? 3 way too much 4 I deleted every track Description 5 Tracks 6 Diamond Certification

[edit] Pulsion/Kill You Case

I mentioned a quick summary of this case under the Kill You section, but someone should add how the case turned out. The French pianist obviously didn't win, but I'm not sure if there was a settlement or something...

I looked on Google for a while and couldn't find anything on the subject other than articles on the lawsuit being orignially filed. My guess is that the French pianist just gave up with the sueing entirely. Realized there was no way they were going to stop selling a multi-platinum just because he was annoyed that it contained a song with a beat moderately similar to one he made before. What a loser. 2Pac 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disclaimer?

I think there should be a disclaimer due to the use of explicit language and sexual references here. Is there such a thing (a disclaimer) in WP about this? Gflores ^Talk 03:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'm wondering if this is too excessive for an album article. Yeah it was a really popular and infamous album, but I don't know if it needs this kind of analysis. There're other multi-platinum albums that I'm sure don't get this kind of coverage. Stoned Trey 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion(even if I don't like Eminem that much) The Marshall Mathers LP is an influential album and it is more than just a market success. VH1 named it as an Ultimate Album just like Bob Marley's Legend and Red Hot Chili Peppers' Blood Sugar Sex Magik. Maybe its useless to have data about all songs in the album but still from the perspective of sociology, Eminem's this album is an important work. With respect, Deliogul 19:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] way too much

why do we have to explain every track ? no other album information has this amount of information.

And that's a bad thing, because......? Seriously, I don't know who posted this, but whoever it is is SOOOOO STOOOPID. Why don't you worry about expanding stubs and other contributions, not moaning about the legnth of an article. Oh, and perhaps I should add one other thing: NOTHING from this article is getting removed. Understand? 2Pac 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

whatever whoever you are I'm not gonna fight with someone who spends most of his time of the computer get a life homie.

Isn't it supposed to be "on the computer", not "of the computer"? You also need a period after "computer", and a capital G on "get"; illiteracy is prominent among cyber nerds who can't get laid. Peace.

I don't really see the point of including album information either, even though I think it is a decent addition to the album. The descriptions of each of the songs are completely biased though (in one of the descriptions, Eminem's view of the world is called 'warped'. He then goes on to defend against Eminem's attack on Christopher Reeve, which really shouldn't even be included if we want this thing to be unbiased. We should just describe the controversy surrounding each of the tracks and each of the meanings of those tracks. We shouldn't be defending against what Eminem says on the track, it's not like he's going to read it and offer a rebuttal just for us.

I think we should keep the track info, after all there is no problem with that. In fact, people should add to other major albums to make wikipedia all the more informative. -jibba-jabbaman

[edit] I deleted every track Description

A song only needs a description if it's a single, and then it gets it's own page. All of the descriptions were biased anyways. Avenger1000 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I put them all back. There is no need for edits where all people do is remove huge parts of text for no good reason. These kinds of edits definitely do the site no good. 2Pac 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What other album pages have a song decription for every single track? The only songs which need descriptons are the singles, and those have their own pages. Those kinds of edits help get to the main point of what an album is about.Avenger1000 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is only your opinion that "only songs which need descriptons are the singles" and that removing 80% or so of the article "help get to the main point of what an album is about." I, for one, do not follow that at all, and it surely is not a reason to cut out virtually the whole page. It is much better to Wikipedia to work on ADDING information, not deleting it. So please don't remove the track descriptions again. It is such a meaningless loss of info. 2Pac 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do sorta agree with the original guy (Why would any of the skits, or a song like Puke need a description?)But that text really isn't really hurting anyone. And someone did spend their time typing all of it. I vote keep it.

Fine. I'm just going to do some editing to make them a little more professional.Avenger1000 23:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever removed those track descriptions, is an idiot. Those track informations actually provided useful in-depth information about the album. It's individuals like you that gives wikipedia a bad name. Please someone add it back.. <<--Ken unsigned comment by 69.138.209.159 13:39, February 10, 2007

see tracks section below

[edit] Tracks

Section is NOT cited, is NOT encyclopedic in nature, and is entirely comprised of original research. Do not add again unless proper citations have been added to make the article's accuracy apparent.Daemon8666 20:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think the section needs improvement, than do so. Deleting it all isn't the way to go. Discussion above shows more detail. 2Pac 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not does not change the fact that these are NOT CITED - that is an objective fact that a simple disagreement does not fix. Address the issue according to wikipedia's policy - until they are sourced they are complete speculation and original research, as well as making the article unnecessarily long. Wikipedia has an established convention in place for album articles - all pertinent song info is recorded under that songs own article, save the most general. One of the above people is correct, in a way; the singles more often get that due to the abundance of info surrounding them because of their seperate release, but NO album article is nearly this long without being legendary in its creation as well as execution, such as in the case of Pink Floyd sections, for example, and in none of those cases is the article cluttered with UNCITED original research. Both of those reasons as well as the article length argue for the exclusion of the material you have tried to defend, and until you address at the very least source the accuracy of the statements they have no FACTUAL basis and must be removed.Daemon8666 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Applicable wiki policy here Wikipedia:No_original_researchDaemon8666 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not belong in the article in its current form, PERIOD.

• It is a violation of Wikipedia: No Original Research. Regardless of ANY OTHER FACTOR, this warrants its deletion. You want it sourced, put it here on the talk page until it is. It does not belong in the article citations are what keeps people from making unwarranted claims. Posting without citations means I can claim that Britney Spears ran the French Army for Napolean. Whether you like it or not, or believe in it or not, having an account or editing on wikipedia implies that you agree to follow wikipedia's overriding consensus in matters pertaining to article content and formation. It is the basic foundation of wikipedia that for consistency and accuracy's sake that these protocols be followed. No one is qualified to say what Eminem meant when he wronte those songs, PERIOD, besides the author himself, or an accredited expert; say someone who interviwed him directly or maybe he explains it in his biography. I agree that ANY sourced information should be pulled out in a specific section, such as a Trivia section, but no unsourced information can remain for the article to maintain the wikipedia standard.
• Even if it were sourced, it makes the article long and unwieldly. This may be overcome by rewriting the secion, but UNTIL THE ISSUE OF CITATIONS IS ADDRESSED IT DOESN"T MATTER.
• Using the "need citations tag" has been suggested. While I agree that wikipedia has many articles that fit this tag, THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES. The Wolfdog article does, for example, since most of the information was either at one time sourced but is no longer (such as now-dead links), or was badly sourced initially and now needs to be re-verified. A large tract of information comprised entirely of statements of incredibly dubious accuracy is NOT such a situation. Daemon8666 07:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Certification

"This album is one of the few rap albums to recieve the RIAA Diamond album certification." I've removed it from the article for now. I can't verify the diamond cert (though that should be quick if the RIAA ever fixes their searchable database, if you have a link please post it), and this seems badly worded. If anyone else comes up with a verification before me post it. Also, it was posted way at the bottom below categories; depending on the wording it can be worked into one of the existing sections as soon as it's good to go.Daemon8666 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)