Talk:Geek rock

Okay, clearly Eric Weisbard doesn't know anything about Geek-Rock (which is different than Nerd-Rock), and I propose that all parts of the article based on "Geek Love" be deleted. In Defense of the Artist (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edits. I was just going to revert a few bits but I couldn't unpick it all in the end.  The main issues I have are as follows:
 * All sources I've seen treat "geek rock" and "nerd rock" as synonymous; I've never seen anything to the contrary anywhere. Kirby Krackle identify themselves as nerd rock and Sci-Fried identify themselves as geek rock but both are clearly in the same genre.  Within these references, the Uncanny article and the Wired interview (Kirby Krackle and the Doubleclicks) both outright state that they are the same.
 * You removed groups such as They Might be Giants, which is probably the most unanimously agreed upon example of geek rock throughout all sources I've found, and Nerf Herder, who actually invented the term "geek rock" to describe themselves.
 * You have not given any sources to back up any of these changes, just assertions, and have deleted several sourced claims in the process. Without sources this seems a lot like a no true scotsman argument.
 * I do feel like the genre has evolved over the years, which may be part of the reason a separation between "rock by geeks" and "geek-rock" (as you say) might appear to be the case. Some of the sources do hint at "Proto-Geek Rock" without giving much to expand on that term.  It might also be the case that there is first/second/etc-wave geek rock, early/late geek  rock (or other equivalent terms).  I think re-sorting the list into date specific ranges might help in this regard. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly our opinions differ, so instead of starting an edit war we should remove all unsourced references. Unless it can be verified by a legitimate, academic reference, it should be removed. In Defense of the Artist (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)