# Talk:The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill

who put the expansion tag on, amd why?
Bouncehoper 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this album really Diamond?  The main Lauryn Hill page says that is only certified 8x platinum & a search on www.riaa.com says the same thing ...

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. USA Today (Jones, Steve. 05.D. August 25, 1998) review of The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill (1998):

RAP: Lauryn Hill, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill ( * * * * ). The 23-year-old Fugees star makes her solo debut, writing with strength and sensitivity on the joys and pains of love, dealing with hypocrites and false friends, and the trials of growing up. Infectious grooves percolate under warm, silky vocals or ear-popping raps; the whole album's a listening pleasure. Carlos Santana's guitar licks punctuate To Zion, an ode to (Lauryn) Hill's infant son, and Mary J. Blige lends sisterly support on the came-to-my-senses tale I Used to Love Him.
Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Should the bonus tracks like "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You", "Tell Him", and "Sweetest Thing (Mahogany Mix) " be listed? TeamMiseducation (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I meant should Sweetest Thing Mahogany Mix be added??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamMiseducation (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 

I think this album is diamond because the RIAA states that it was 8x Platinum in 2002, which was over 8 years ago. You don't think it hasn't sold another 2 Million in 8 years? TeamMiseducation 06:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamMiseducation (talk • contribs)  

I have no doubts that the album has sold 2 mil. in 8 years - worldwide, but the RIAA is only for U.S. sales. The RIAA is updated on a regular basis, so if the album really was Diamond, I'd assume it would be mentioned on their database. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Correct. I think that it has sold another 2 Million in the US. I mean come on I just bought the record myself, Its the freakin Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Does the RIAA keep a look on the record sells forever? TeamMiseducation 00:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamMiseducation (talk • contribs)  
Its up to the label to apply for certification.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.4.210 (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 

I'm not trying to have edit wars with anyone, but I'm restoring reggae and gospel in the infobox for the following reasons: songs such as "Lost Ones," "Forgive Them Father," and "When It Hurts So Bad" clearly have reggae elements. Songs such as "To Zion" (most notably the gospel choir at the end), and the album's title track showcase gospel music, and songs such as "Final Hour," "Forgive Them Father," and the album's title track showcase gosepl content, and many Biblical references. There's even a sourced quote in the article by Hill herself which states "Gospel music is music inspired by the gospels. In a huge respect, a lot of this music turned out to be just that. During this album, I turned to the Bible and wrote songs that I drew comfort from." --Blastmaster11 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The first part of your comment is WP:OR. The genres of an album refer to the genres which describe the album as a sole body of work in its entirety. The genres of individual songs or if there is a certain number of songs with x-genre doesn't necessarily make the album x-genres. Like anything else genres need to be sourced. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just going by what is stated in the genre section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums - "The one or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma should be listed here." Obviously an argument could be made that they're among the several genres that reflect this album ... and obviously an argument could be made that they are not. I suppose it isn't imperative that they be listed in the infobox, but I also don't see any harm in them being listed in the infobox either. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I do see harm of having them in the infobox. This isn't a gospel or a reggae album. The album did not chart on the Gospel charts or Reggae charts (cite here) (and here). This site only mentions R&B and hip-hop in it's genre. It's better to keep it simple than for someone to hoping to buy this thinking it's one of the top reviewed reggae albums. They'll be quite disappointed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it's solely a reggae album, nor am I saying that it's solely a gospel album. Once again, I was just going by what is stated in the genre section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums - "The one or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma should be listed here." Just because the album failed to have success on the reggae and gospel charts doesn't automatically discredit their inclusion on the album. By the way, I doubt anyone is going to go out and purchase this album expecting it to be a "top reviewed reggae album" being that there's other genres listed right beside reggae in the infobox, and also, "top reviewed reggae album" isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Reggae and gospel have been in the infbox for months now, so I don't understand why out of the blue there's a fuss over them. I'll remove them though since the majority wants them gone. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with you wanting to add Reggae and Gospel to the genres that are included in the album. It seems fine to me. TeamMiseducation 05:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamMiseducation (talk • contribs)  
I believe you're interpreting wikipedia's rules incorrectly. Like it says, "The one or more music genres that the album reflects should be listed. The album does not reflect gospel or reggae by any means since those genres do not make up a substantial portion of the album.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.4.210 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 
There's clearly reggae elements in a number of songs, and Lauryn herself stated (above quote) that much of this album is gospel. Regardless, I actually agree with you that they "do not make up a substantial portion of the album" - you make a very solid point. But If you look at the end of my last comment in this section, I already removed reggae and gospel since the majority wanted them gone - this was almost six months ago, and we haven't had any problems with this issue since then. Thanks for your comment though. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:gbfexqwjldfe7
--CactusBot (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose the current ranking on the prestigious list of The Greatest Albums of All-Time as complied by Rolling Stone magazine be noted, superseding all older rankings. As of 2012 the ranking is #314. The new list is currently only available in print, but still a valid source.--Joey.J (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no "as of". That list was a special issue by RS in November 2003, and the 2012 list you are refering to is a separate publication. But neither is the point. The point of including this list in this article's lead section is to be a supporting example of the statement preceding, that the album has been considered one of the greatest, or of its standing with critics. It's not outdated like a sales report, b/c it's an opinion, a ranking by a music publication. Its encyclopedic value to the article is to support the claim that it is respected by critics, and this is better served if the 2003 ranking is kept. Too much weight is being given to this list anyway, and eschewing a higher ranking for the sake of better reflecting what RS says is not encyclopedic. Not for this article's topic at least. It's like prioritizing the list, which is there b/c it ranks the album so high, over the article's topic. Dan56 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
While the list is comprised of consensus by opinion, so are the Grammy Awards and its ranking on the RS500 should carry just as much weight. In 2005 and 2012, Rolling Stone revised the list to correct errors, consolidate data, and add newer releases. No mention of a ranking on the list would be complete without indicating the latest score. The placement of albums on this list is factual... namely it is a fact that this album is currently on the list at rank #314, even though the method for determining the ranking of albums on the list was opinionated. --Joey.J (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Rankings Per the guidelines at WP:ALBUM and the site-wide explanation of WP:LEDE, we should not give undue weight to Rolling Stone in the lead section. The more general claim that it is lauded can be explained in the sections on critical reception and legacy. As far as the 2012 ranking replacing the 2003 one, it is oftentimes useful to include both ratings. RS is notorious for giving bad reviews at the time of initial publication and then changing their minds later (e.g. Led Zeppelin.) In this case, however, the 2003 rating was published several years after their initial review of the album, so it's not as important to note the 2003 ranking. It would be easy to write, "... in 2012, it was listed #X on RS 500 Greatest Albums of All-Time[ref] (rising from #Y in the magazines 2003 compilation.)[ref]" but not necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, JoeyJ, you say that it is fact. But that's the wrong context. It's not "currently" anything; their list is not an evolving, updatable list. There's one list, published in 2003, and another, so they're not one and the same. It is fact that in 2003, RS ranked it... . That's fact. You're still missing the point. We're not updating facts, like the album suddenly became less of a "greatest album". "Greatness" is not a fact, and stop calling it data. Some albums moved up/down a couple of spots b/c of newer ones being added. I don't know anything about what RS was considering (errors, polls) for the reason to publish a new list. Dan56 (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Dan, allow me to shed some light on the list itself. In 2003, Rolling Stone polled 273 people in the music industry (including journalists) and compiled a list. In 2005 minor corrections were made to fix errors and consolidate duplicates. In 2009, they did a similar poll with 100 people to pick the best of the 2000s. From those combined results, RS created this new 2012 list. The 2012 list simply incorporates the new poll data to reflect album rankings based on all releases instead of those prior to 2003. It is therefore more accurate and more relevant. No one is arguing that these albums are in fact the 500 best of all-time. That claim can be debated on the RS500 page. Publishing an album's ranking on the list is simply factual reporting. It is relevant to every album on the list simply because of the reputation of Rolling Stone and its weight in the industry over time. It certainly does not preclude other lists or awards from also being mentioned. I agree it belongs in an Accolades section and not in the main body of the article. But as Justin agrees, listing the 2003 number alone makes no sense. Either both should be listed or the 2012 number should be. And for the record, I'm arguing that this policy should be applied to all articles of albums on the list. Joey.J (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to toss in my "2 cents" here, I personally don't see it as being all that imperative to add the 2012 ratings for albums that previously appeared on the list (especially if the revised rating is a measly 2-rank difference). As everyone here may, or may not know, they've done quite a few "revisions" to the book versions as well, one of which has The Dynasty: Roc La Familia included ... so are we gonna note specific differences such as this to Wikipedia pages? But on the other hand, it might be a good idea to note the current version, being that it lets readers know that an album (such as the one we're discussing here) still holds a spot on the list. All in all though, this topic should probably be transferred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, being that it pertains to many other album pages as well. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding whether Miseducation has sold 18 million worldwide ... In 2002-2003, there are several good sources (Columbia Records, Rolling Stone, Time) that place its worldwide sales at 12 million.  Now Wikipedia comes along.  This article gains this edit on December 23, 2007 that says "The albums has been certified diamond selling over 18 million copies worldwide".  The first claim we know is false (it topped out at 8x platinum, not 10x) and the second claim is unsourced.  It is really unlikely the record gained an additional 6 million sales during 2003-2008 (we know its U.S. sales did not increase that much during this time, since there was no additional certification).  Any sources from 2008 on that give the 18 million number are possibly being lazy and just reproducing the Wikipedia number without being careful.  Thus, we are in acute danger of citogenesis here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty exceptional claim. Nonetheless, I'll indulge it: following this principle, we cant trust anything after January 2001 (when Wikipedia came along) as source for articles? How do you know Columbia's claim (the label releasing the album) wasn't used as the basis for either Rolling Stone or Time magazine's article? What do awards from the RIAA (for shipments to stores rather than actual sales, in the US) have to do with worldwide sales? Dan56 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia didn't start getting a lot of attention in and by the mainstream press until 2005 or so.  The danger of a feedback loop involving false information is especially prevalent in this kind of article, where fan IP addresses invent higher sales numbers for their hero and rival fan IP addresses subtract from them.  (If you've ever edited articles involving Madonna, Mariah, Celine, Lady Gaga, etc, you've seen what I'm talking about.)  Rolling Stone and Time may very well have used the Columbia figure, but the fact that they used it indicates they thought it was credible, especially in the Rolling Stone article where a lot of investigation took place.  Of course, RIAA awards say nothing about worldwide sales; I was simply pointing out that the IP editor who put the 18 million figure into the article was making up the other part of that sentence so there's no reason to think they weren't making up the 18 million part too.  Yes, RIAA measures shipments not sales, but that is still very useful - if an album is certified 8x platinum, you can have a high degree of confidence that the actual sales are somewhere in the 7-9 million range.
The fact remains that I've looked in Google News Archive and Google Books and some on the pure web and I cannot find any statements before 2008 that Miseducation sold 18 million worldwide.  Until then, and often after that, the figure was always 12 million.  But don't believe me, check for yourself.  See if you can figure out where the 18 million number suddenly comes from.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Why does it have to be before 2008? Dan56 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Because then we could be sure that the source wasn't influenced by what was in the WP article.  Also, if she had a sudden surge in overseas sales between 2002/3 and 2008, at a time when she was either inactive or getting bad press, there should be some news story somewhere that discusses such a surprising development. Or a story that gives intermediate results (e.g. a 2006 article that says she has sold 15 million worldwide, that kind of thing).  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Who cares about what was in a Wikipedia article six years ago. I think you're giving Wikipedia way too much credit and not enough to the sources cited (for instance, Moon's book) for fact-checking (I would speculate that Columbia might want to report a correction if they were wrong; sort of like this for House of Music, for instance). Besides, who's to say a sales increase wasn't a natural aftereffect of the increase in digital retailers worldwide? Who's to say the original news source that reported a different figure before 2008 is no longer available? (link rot and web site redesigns happen, and articles are lost; see Billboard.com and Yahoo! Music). I wouldn't trust neither a record label or the RIAA to get an impression of what an album sold; all apart representing the music industry in some capacity. If all there is to question a source is unverifiable speculation, that's not enough to remove it, especially when the two reported figures are six years apart. The "according to" is appended for either, and readers may choose which to believe. Perhaps one day a Nielsen-based report of the actual sales will be available. Surprising that there that hasn't been a recent one. Dan56 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all the things you mention are possible, although I think unlikely.  As for trusting record companies, yes they will tend to hype accomplishments of their acts, which is why if they come up with the lower number of two sources, I tend to give it more credence.  But it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There's been a few back and forth edits with the original Pitchfork review of this album and the retrospective one in the review table. If this continues, let's first discuss this here before any edit warring. As for myself, I'm on the fence - on one hand it's worth noting the review/rating that was originally given, but then again it's worth noting if a publication gives a different one 18 years later. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a legacy section further down; I'll make an extra ratings template there for retrospective reviews. Dan56 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. 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.eonline.com/news/36955/lauryn-hill-queen-of-the-music-hill
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930191939/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_P.php?debut=450 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_P.php?debut=450
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) 04:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509072251/http://www.dancingaboutarc.com/essays/laurynhillessay.html to http://www.dancingaboutarc.com/essays/laurynhillessay.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) 13:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The July 7 release date for "Doo Wop" can't be right. I researched 1998 Billboard magazine issues to find the correct date. Copying these notes that I made on the single's Talk page.
The song that was previously getting airplay when the album was released, August 25, was "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You".
The "Doo Wop" single was reviewed in the same issue as the album, Aug 29. The review states "this is the first official single from Hill's much-anticipated solo debut". This issue was also the first week that "Doo Wop" reached the R&B Airplay chart. However, this single was not for sale to the public.
Billboard article in Nov 7 issue says 'After three months at radio, Lauryn Hill's "Doo Wop (That Thing)" (Ruffhouse /Columbia) is finally released at retail.'
It was the Nov 14 issue where it debuted at #1 on the Hot 100.
RIAA Gold and Platinum site lists a release date for the single of Oct. 27. 
https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=Lauryn+Hill#search_section
I'm going to change the release date to Oct 27 on this page; I already changed the single's page. I have not been able to figure out how to make a cite for the RIAA page. PatConolly (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
And now the wrong date is back again. Sigh. PatConolly (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I see the date for the single is now listed as "August 10", based on an article in the August 1 Billboard saying that it would be released (to radio only) on that date. That's more accurate than July 7 although I think the record company missed that date by a few days; otherwise it would have been reviewed before the August 29 issue. I wonder what exactly is defined as the "release date". The date the song is available to buy, or the date when it is available for radio stations to play (but not sell)?  PatConolly (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)  

@Pillowdelight:, in reference to your last edit summary, there are reliable sources cited in the article framing the genres you've removed as dominant genres of this album. To quote a few, in "Critical reception," David Browne of Entertainment Weekly calls it "one of the rare hip-hop soul albums ...", while XXL says it reaffirms Hill's status as the "voice of a young, progressive hip-hop nation". Even more so, "hip hop" is declared in the same vein in Accolades and Reappraisal several times ("the first hip hop album..."; "Hip hop's 25 greatest albums...") There's no question reliable sources consider this album a hip-hop soul album, or a progressive rap album, or more generally a hip hop album, rather than just mere elements, as you phrased it. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 14:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Teflon Peter Christ: Well it would be wiser to actually rephrase portions of this article than especially in the lead and under “Music and lyrics” where they both state only that this is a neo soul and R&B album. They both state that some songs are hip hop soul. — not that this is a hip hop soul album which is what the template calls for. Pillowdelight (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
We are citing opinions, not making statements with the implication that they're facts. See WP:AESTHETIC for further clarity on this point. As for where these opinions happen to be located, yes, there is overlap on this genre theme between the music/lyrics section and critical reviews. But that does not take away from the fact that these perspectives are referenced in the article to reliable sources. And remember, there is also a source that claims some tracks are more hip hop soul than neo soul, which does not necessarily mean the same thing as saying that the neo soul tracks are not also hip hop soul. All things considered, I don't see the current genres as they are in the infobox as controversial. But you are welcome to solicit further opinions from other editors (WP:DISPUTE, WP:THIRDOPINION). 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 22:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I had previously removed the co and additional producers, Che Pope and Vada Nobles in the infobox due to the template only calling for main producers. But @Blastmaster11: reverted it claiming that the lawsuit they had against her for not properly crediting them ended in their favor. But according to the Rolling Stone articles they only state it was  settled out of court for a sum of $5 million. No where does it state they were granted producing/writing credits after the lawsuit was settled. I have tried explaining this to them on their talk page but they are still determined to have them included despite not providing any sources actually stating this. They provided the AllMusic review that does list additional production and being a producer for Vada Nobles and lists Che Pope only for programming. I can’t find any source actually stating they were granted credits. If I could please get other opinions on if they should be kept or removed I would very much appreciate it. Thank you. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes and personnel sections do not just reproduce whatever liner notes say: they are supposed to represent what is verifiable based on reliable, third-party sources. What do those sources say re: songwriting and production credits? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
One Rolling Stone article states — Miseducation‘s liner notes mostly credit Hill with producing, writing and arranging the entire album. It was, in fact, a huge group effort, as underlined by a lawsuit settled out of court in 2001 for a reported $5 million. and the other states — The four musicians claimed in the suit that they worked on arranging and producing all the cuts on Hill’s Grammy-winning solo debut, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, and requested partial writing credit on thirteen of the fourteen original tracks on the album, with percentages specified in the suit. While Hill’s spokesman at Columbia Records confirmed that a settlement had been reached, he said the terms are undisclosed, which is typical in such cases. So it’s clear — it’s unconfirmed if they were given credits. So there’s absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to be giving them credit. Pillowdelight (talk) Pillowdelight (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources that state otherwise? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find any reliable sources that state they were granted credits. Every source I’ve come across only state it was settled out of court for either an undisclosed amount or $5 million. But other than that, no. Pillowdelight (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
AllMusic clearly credits both Che, and Vada as producers here. Also, this article acknowledges them as producers. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
That still does not confirm that they were granted credits. I want an article that physically states they would be granted writing and producing credits after the lawsuit was settled. The AllMusic credits two Che's, Che Pope and Che Guevara — when you google Guevara it comes up with Pope. They credit Pope as an additional producer and Guevara as a programer. This would be very confusing as why would they need two different names for one person. Vibe article is questionable, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were getting that information from Wikipedia because like I said no articles claim they were granted credits. Pillowdelight (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Che "Guevara" is what Che Pope was credited as in hard copies of the album (cassette, CD, vinyl) - same person. AllMusic credits him as a producer; weather you like it or not. Also, we should discard the Vibe article now because YOU find it "questionable", and "wouldn't be surprised if they were getting that information from Wikipedia"??? *sigh* I can already see this turning into a circus like what you caused a while back by trying to do away with Nielsen Soundscan becuae YOU found them "unreliable." Even though we all tried painstakingly to explain to you how certifications/sales worked, you'd still automatically shoot down any, and every, explanation that anyone would give. Sorry, but I'm not up for a repeat of the same type of nonsense. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Ha. That was three years ago when I was a beginner user which ended up being resolved. I was confused, obviously now I’ve learned from it. This is completely a whole different situation compared to that. And yes I do find it questionable, they’re practically the only source that states them as producers, despite AllMusic. Even Spotify doesn’t even list their credits — which is coming directly from Ruffhouse Records and Columbia Records, Hills labels. I mean every source states it was settled out of court. We obviously will most likely never know if they were granted credits or not there is no point in including them. I hope other users chime in on this. Pillowdelight (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Pillowdelight "...obviously now I’ve learned from it". Sorry but I don't find it "obvious", as you're literally doing the same thing here (i.e., straw manning arguments/automatically refusing sources that don't fit your narrative). In regard to "Spotify doesn’t even list their credits"; do they even list half of this album's credits, or of albums in general? If not, then you aren't making a very good point here. Even if you were, Wikipedia prohibits using streaming services as sources (per WP:ALBUMSTYLE). Finally, I do not care one iota if YOU happen to find the Vibe article "questionable". It, along with AllMusic, is a reliable source that sites Che and Vada as producers on this album. Period. To get back to where we started, you removed Che and Vada from the infobox for being "...co or additional producers". Regardless of what is, and isn't, publicly known of the lawsuit, there's at least two reliable third-party sources here that credit them as actual producers. Whether you personally like that or not is irrelevant.  --Blastmaster11 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Blastmaster11 and @Pillowdelight : For track listing template,  please discuss at ‎Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Track template. 2001:D08:2904:65A3:17AD:81D9:D15F:3762 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion took place last August, and it didn't at all pertain to the track list template. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not an accurate statement. There were many black musicians on the cover prior, including:
Louis Armstrong (2/21/49)
Duke Ellington (8/20/56)
Thelonious Monk (2/28/64)
Aretha Franklin (6/28/68) 2600:1702:5F30:1CC0:494A:FD13:3DF9:86A0 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)