Talk:The Return of Dr. Octagon/Archive 1

Neutrality / Factual accuracy

I have MAJOR problems with this article. Following some Myspace links, it appears that the guy who added all the stuff for the article (Theo Johnson, no longer a registered user) is the DJ in question, Fanatik J, bringing up POV questions. Heck, it reads like a press release. The article also doesn't mention any of the controversy surrounding it--for example, label issues, rumors that Kool Keith did not want this released, etc. There were also plenty of problems with references, which another user has fixed to some degree. I recommend a major overhaul. HumbleGod 03:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Kool Keith's wiki page has a "released with out Keith's permission" blurb, and this doesnt even refer to the actual album- it refers to the "real" return of dr. octagon that Keith is allegedly working on with Fanatik J. Hopefully someone can get to the bottom of this, until then the page needs a major overhaul to reflect what was actually released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.197.140 (talk • contribs)

---

Hasn't anyone tried actually -asking- Kool Keith for clarification here? He's out on tour.

More information

Okay, I've been looking into this a little bit, and here's what I make of it so far, based on fan posts on forums and FanatikJ's site.

• Apparently Kool Keith did approve of FanatikJ working on a project called "The Return of Dr. Octagon" some four years ago and gave him some vocal tracks to work with.
• In the meantime, some incomplete tracks were released under the name "Dr. Octagon Part II," featuring a cover of KK in front of an Escalade.[1] The general agreement seems to be that that album is definitely a scam. I only bring it up because it's helped add to the confusion over the "real" album, and it needed to be dealt with in passing.
• An album called "The Return of Dr. Octagon" has been released by OCD Records. This features One Watt Sun on production. It gets murkier here, but the general impression I'm getting (based on a Kool Keith forum[2]) is that KK gave some vocal tracks to the label behind the released album (alternately CMH or OCD Records) because he owed them SOMETHING; then the label brought in One Watt Sun, had them do some mixing, and released the product. The consensus I'm reading is that KK does NOT approve of the released version.
• Meanwhile, FanatikJ is promoting his project as the "real" "Return of Dr. Octagon," featuring DJ Tek Threat, but so far has not finished the album.
• Kool Keith's new website is under construction. The old version of the site has closed its forums, but postings under NEWS mention FanatikJ, giving credence to his claim that his is the true "Return" album.

Here are some relevant links:

• RELEASED album (with One Watt Sun):
  • Myspace page
  • Official website, thereturnofdroctagon.com
• "REAL" album (with FanatikJ)
  • Myspace page (with blogs explaining the label dispute)
  • Official website, returnofdroctagon.com (no "the" at the front)
  • FanatkJ's Myspace

I'll write up a brief article to reflect that there's an argument over which album deserves the title "The Return of Dr. Octagon," but I'm reluctant to flesh it out until more solid facts are available. If anyone else finds anything, please update appropriately. HumbleGod 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice that Keith does not appear once in the music video[3] for The Return of Doctor Octagon's first release,"Aliens", which can be seen at [4]. It has been speculated that the absence of his image in the video may be attributed in no small degree to legal complications and due to the album's production without Keith's consent. Even modest observers of Keith's greater body of work may distinguish the Return album's utter dissimilarity in virtually every capacity compared to the original Dr. Octogon album some ten years earlier. This may be dismissed by some due to the prolonged lapse of time and Keith's eccentric reputation but others would argue that the scam of "The Return" reveals itself in the generically absurd song titles, the minimalizing of Keith himself throughout the album and excessive focus on the mixing, as well as the featured artists list boasting the names of the virtually unknown people who were responsible for the album's production. Keith has been consistently and fervently outspoken throughout his career against image defamation, exploitation, and the like, which many Keith supporters would argue further indicts this record as a shameless scam to capitalize off Keith's image by promoting products of inferior quality under his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.135.178 (talk • contribs)

cleanup

I've placed a cleanup tag on this topic. This article needs to decide if it's going to stay or not, and what content it will have. Topics that aren't ready can be put in the sandbox or a sub-page off your user page before publishing them in the main namespace. -- Mikeblas 07:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oi, I wanted to be lazy and leave this for someone else to fix up. Fortunately (or not) I had nothing to do this evening, so I expanded my findings from this discussion page into a more-standard WP article. I've taken the liberty of removing the Cleanup box afterwards; however, if anyone feels more work needs to be done, please note as much. I feel that my writeup does a pretty good job of noting the controversy, as well as making a case for the subject's notability, but any improvement is welcome. HumbleGod 05:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article looks a lot better now. Don't forget to add the future album template, and add a few categories. -- Mikeblas 05:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll certainly add some categories. I'm not sure that the future album template applies since one version of the album has been released, though some might argue that the "real" album is still to come. HumbleGod 05:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You probably should have two articles, one for the album by each artist. -- Mikeblas 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe not. I talk myself into it as easily as I talk myself out of it. -- Mikeblas 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be a good idea if/when the other version of the album is released, but not right now. At the moment, the only reason that project is notable is because of the controversy surrounding the two, so a separate article for it probably isn't warranted per WP:NOT. HumbleGod 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Great work on the cleanup! -- Mikeblas 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New bit on the album controversy

I've added a new heading to the controversy section, giving more info about the legitimacy of the OCD release. The trail's a bit cold but if anyone knows of an article corroberating the East Bay Express piece, or even has a copy of the Sept 2006 issue of The Wire where Keith talks about the album, it would be great to add more. I think's it's worth exploring these hilarious rap-industy screw-overs...Leekohlbradley 06:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this belong in the lead-in?

"This may reflect Thornton's lack of involvement." I moved it to the end... but does it belong in the lead at all?sinneed (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It is opinion and original research, so I removed it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Greed

Does the "greedy" quote, even though a direct quote, really belong? Does the motivation in the dispute matter, or just the dispute itself? I tend to shy away from "why", because we can never know. We can be much more sure of at least what people SAY happened... motivations are always suspect. Even though this is about a production, it refers to living persons, so wp:BLP applies whenever it does.sinneed (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Excessive quotes

There are an excessive amount of quotes from Thorton in this article. It borders on being a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I strongly understand the temptation to include a lot of quotes from the artist, as he would seem to be an expert on the topic. And in a sense, he is. He can give us details about his motivations and what he brought to the music. However, Thorton is a biased party who has strong personal investment in the topic. Additionally, most of his quotes here reflect opinoins. WP generally presents facts and lets the reader form their own opinions. If an opinion is appropriate (critcal reception, etc...), WP primarily reports the opinions of third-party, reputable, verifiable sources. So, the extended quote on how "funky" the album is is a little too much. Maybe a brief mention of his feelings that his partipation increased the "funkiness" of the album is sufficient with a citation. Also, it is unfair that we get to hear Thorton's opinion on FJ's "greediness" but not FJ's. What would be even better is a simple report on the controversy with no quotes but ample citations. Carefully go through each quote from Thorton and make it briefer, paraphrase it, or replace it with the report of a third-party (all with citations).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

"Fanatik J engaged in a legal battle with CMH over contractual terms that did not give him artistic control over remixes in an attempt to prevent the album's release." Says who? did Fantastic J say that's why he was doing it? Then report this fact. Otherwise, we can't read his mind and we dare not interpret his actions. This is purely opinion, and Wikipedia does not have opinions about anything. Wikipedia only presents facts.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed that is what he said. Reworded. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Critique section

There is way too much defense of the album and only one sentence that alludes to the fact that the album had critics. if they album was controversial, both sides need to be represented fairly. The quote from Marisa Brown in particular is WAY too long. And she gets TWO quotes. That in itself isn't bad, but I only counted five comments on the album: two from Marisa Brown, one from Thorton himself, one from Pitchfork media and one from John Lind (who is that? Is his opinion important, unbiased and verifiable? If so, wikilink to his article or mention which magazine he's from). This is pretty insufficient. John and Thorton are biased, Marisa is over represented and that leaves Pitchfork. There should be more than two unbiased comments, especially on a controversial album. For a good critical review section, see the article Continuum (album)#Reception.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I'm amending my comment: The Production section is like a mix of production and critique. Third-party comments should be in the reception section (since they were not involved in production) - which now that I've read it, is pretty good. The production section generally contains too much opinion on the result of the album. it should be heavily trimmed and that long quote by Marisa can be pretty much removed. Also the Lyrical themes and storyline section is basically more critical reception, which is, by the way, biased towards praise. Anyway, it should be combined with production and simply explain the plot and some basic fact-based commentary on the lyrics and music (chords used, rhyme schemes, themes, moods, plots) but no opinions about how great or bad it is. That should be in the review section. commentary about how it was made from the actual artists is appropriate. I'll try to help fix it some. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I do want to mention that this article is well-referenced, which is commendable and very refreshing to see.

• I changed the structure of the article to reflect what is actually being discussed - the production section refers to the actual musical content, not the general history of the album. Apologies for the confusion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Too many reviews

There are far too many reviews in the infobox. WP:Albums says to have a maximum of ten. I've placed the others reviews here in case they are needed for citation. Please discuss before adding/removing reviews!

* Dusted Magazine (mixed) link
* Hip Hop DX  link
* IGN (9.2/10) link
* Lost at Sea (9.5/10) link
* musicOMH  link
* Prefix (2/5) link
* Rap Reviews (3.5/10) link

Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I took out this sentence: "Brown also believed that the music was produced organically through keyboards, guitars, horns, and turntables, with very few samples." I see the need for the info but it's not right to say that a reviewer "believed" the music was created in a certain way. I'm not sure if it actually WAS produced that way or if she was laboring under a delusion, so I don't want to edit it myself. Either say "Brown also commented on the fact that..." or put it in a section more related to the musical style.

Good luck with the Featured Article! Merpin (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)