Talk:List of nu metal bands/Archive 1

Removed some bands.
I removed Kittie Simply becouse Wikipedia Does not list there genre on Kittie's Article

I removed Saliva (band), SOiL and Nickelback from the list, as i don't think they belong to the nu metal gerne. Please reply here if you object. :) ~ | twsx | talkcont | 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I completely agree on Nickelback and SOiL. Both bands are more post-grunge/alternative hard rock, neither incorporate the hardcore/hip hop influences that most define nu metal. Saliva's early material does fit though, so I'd say it should stay in. They've changed since then, but Every Six Seconds for example is about as nu metal as they come. Prophaniti (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on Nickelback. I don't know enough songs by Saliva, but SOiL is related to nu metal. I removed boysetsfire from the list. They were melodic hardcore/post-hardcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.84.135.109 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

what about these two australian bands 28 days and superheist? (check out "rip it up" by 28 days and "step back" by superheist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldonald86 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Who the hell decided that Nickelback was nu metal? Hell, they're not even alternative metal!! Maplejet (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed Demon Hunter because there are no verible sources to support that they are nu metal. Despite the arguments of many fans, Demon Hunter is widely projected as a metalcore band.

P.S.: Nickelback is indeed alternative metal. There are many verible sources to support this, but vandalization of the article has caused them to be labeled simply as alternative rock.

BreakerLOLZ (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

--- Evanescence? They claim to be influenced by Korn, and they sound to me like Linkin Park. Saliva is nu metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.94.219 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

--- Also, the new Guns N Roses sound a little Nu Metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.94.219 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed Static-X, they are industrial metal, they have never sounded Nu metal. Felix-schade (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed alot of bands, basically went through each one and looked at "Genre." If it didn't say Nu Metal or Nu Metal (early) I removed it.--WhereAmI (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are both Linkin Park and Slipknot both listed under the same genre? They are quite obviously different styles, so why are they listed as the same genre? The more older Linkin Park music is closer to what I consider nu metal, so should that be mentioned, like Papa Roach.SellYourSoul (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The important phrase there is "what I consider nu metal". The music media has reported both Slipknot and Linkin Park as nu metal, so that's what we report. Even if it seems plain wrong, it's an unfortunate fact that wikipedia doesn't employ logic or reason, just sources.
 * On a personal note, it is worth noting that genres can be very broad things. You can have two bands within a genre that don't really sound that much like one another, but have enough unifying characteristics to be lumped together. And "nu metal" itself is very much a media construct anyway, even more so than many other musical genres it relies not so much on set characteristics as simply what the media says. Prophaniti (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a single trace of nu metal in Disturbed or Godsmack, personally. They're more of just straight-out heavy metal. No turntables, no 7-string guitars, not a trace of hip-hop influence. 151.203.82.101 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing the flag icons
I took out Godsmack and Fear Factory, NOT nu metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.211.213 (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The flag icons make the page look way to crowded, and are contrary to the WP:FLAG guideline. I am going to begin the process of removing them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and don't see how they violate WP:FLAG. Please elaborate. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 20:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a bunch of problems, all from WP:FLAG:
 * "When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags."
 * "Flag icons are often overused. When added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant,"
 * "Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustration."
 * UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first argument is a valid point. That would be a reason for expansion, not removal. Your second argument applies to articles, not necessarily lists. Your third argument is invalid, they enhance the list with information, i see no decorative value in them. You are free to change the article to another form that provides the same information, but please don't just remove content from it. Just using flags without anything else seems to be the preferred standard used, yet, i am absolutely open to a new layout (for an example, the tables used on the article List_of_alternative_metal_artists), you would, though, probably have to do it yourself, as i spent enough time gathering the information for the flags already, and don't feel like doing it anew. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The criteria of this list makes no mention of nationality, it is a list of bands considered nu-metal, there nationalities has no relevance. Please see the manual of style, especially the sections Do not emphasize nationality without good reason, Help the reader rather than decorate and Using too many flags. There is absolutely no reason to emphasize nationality here, it simple has nothing to do with the style of music these bands play. Also look at other similar lists for reference. -- neon white user page talk 14:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're going to remove content, please do so without leaving the article in a mess. Anyhow, I disagree. When I go through a list of bands of some musical genre, I want to know where those bands are from. Not only can an article gain your interest because of your awareness of its topics origin, it also (in this case especially) shows the allocation of the genre all over the world. Please quote point where the use of the flags in this article violates or touches the guideline, as I can't seem to find any. I unserstand you will be as bold as to just remove them again, I shall not to so too, but I will eventually revert your edit if you can't come up with any argument. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The nationality of bands has nothing whatsoever to do with the criteria of this list. The list is not an article to "shows the allocation of the genre all over the world" as this information would likely not be considered encylcopedic. If you want to create an article about the "allocation of the genre all over the world" then do so but this is not it. flagicons are not to be used for decoration and they are not for national pride as they appear to be used here. This is this clearest misuse I have seen. Read the manual of style, especially the sections Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. Also look of every single other list of bands Category:Lists of musicians by genre. This is considered a misuse by the community. If you cannot state a valid reason why the nationality needs highlighting here then leave them out. If you keep reverting good faith edits that clearly improve the encyclopedia without a valid reason then you may recieve a warning. -- neon white  user page talk 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting assumption you make, as I am of Swiss and Czech ancestry. But your argumentation is none really anyhow. I do, though, not care about it enough to actually fight you on this. Yet I must insist that you remove the flags properly, without messing up the layout and/or leaving raw wiki markup in the output. Also, practice your courtesy. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The layout was fine and consistant with the Lists manual of style. If you like i could rfc or ask for a third opinion asking whether this particular page should be unique amongst all wikipedia lists and completely waste everyone's time. -- neon white user page talk 03:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Light Burns
Just because Wes was in Limp Bizkit doesn't make BLB a Nu Metal band if you actually listened to the music there more of a Industrial/Alternative Metal.TG 50 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) --- Actually they are they're just closer to Korn's rendition of it. You can add the subgenre disputed tag to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.169.21 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged
I have Tagged this unencyclpidic because this should be a category not a article. T r e e s R o c k Pl an t A Tr ee! 16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Page redesign.
Hello. I thought the current layout was ugly (eventhough it was me who brought it to the article). I have therefor made a little script which would transport it to a better, more organized wikitable. See the result here! Any suggestions, objections, ideas, or other feedback? If you have an idea to make it better, please share it. I'll change the article to the new form in a couple of days. PS: The "sources" column is still empty now, but i'm planning to fix that and add sources to the article as soon as i get around to it. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 14:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Update. Please check the page again. I have re-done the design again, and would now like to implement it. Any objections? ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bands with not enough hip-hop influence.
Bands that are not in any way influence by hip-hop should not be included (Evanescene, for example). Also, consider whether a band has enough metal influence to be in the article (something as light as TFK should not be included). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.38.115 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh? Well, i can't put it any more simple than this: This page is about nu metal, not hip hop. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 11:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Twsx sums it up just fine: This page is about nu metal, not hip hop. Many nu metal bands do incorporate hip hop influence to some degree, some very much so (Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit), others in more subtle ways like basslines or drum beats, or just general bounce and atmosphere. But it's not a prerequisite. Nu metal does not mean "Hip hop metal". Prophaniti (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

BLOODSIMPLE IS NOT NU-METAL A BAND CALLED RED ON THE OTHER HAND MAY BE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.163.253 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fear Factory
Fear Factory are not nu metal, they are and have been combinations of Groove and Industrial with their very early material being death metal. Their main page doesn't even say nu metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman smith (talk • contribs) 02:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It does now (I'd forgotten it didn't say that, but meant to change it). Specifically Digimortal, as it says on this list. That album bears a lot of similarities to nu metal, and is sourced (Metal Observer). Besides which, genre debates should be kept to the band pages, not the list page. The list is here to reflect those pages, not to debate every single band on here. Prophaniti (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

bands..
Chevelle, Static-X, Stone Sour, and Onesidezero are not nu metal bands. Chevelle - Hard/Alternative Rock Static-X - Industrial Metal Stone Sour - Alternative Metal/Hard Rock Onesidezero - Hard Rock I added a note on the respective sections of these bands. Take a look before you add em back.


 * Chevelle and Onesidezero I'm not familiar with, but Stone Sour and Static-X I'll re-add. Both have "nu metal" sourced on their pages.
 * Remember that a band doesn't have to simply be "nu metal" and nothing but. Most bands could be classed as/bear elements of more than one genre. Sources overcome all as far as wikipedia is concerned, but for what it's worth I do feel both bands have enough "nu metal" in them to qualify. Prophaniti (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

bolded bands
As of today (6.3.9), some of the bands are no longer bolded. Those previously bolded signified either fame or especial adherence to the nu-metal style. Which bands were bolded is completely subjective and is not representative of the style of other 'list of' articles. However, they were bold when I first discovered this page and I really liked it, I thought it was a great idea. I was hoping to open a discussion on this, to see whether an exception or an amendment to style is appropriate. --Carbon Rodney 12:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A good issue to raise. The problem with the bolding as it stands is it's completely subjective. I do like the idea of having something highlighting the big names of the movement, but the problem is classifying that. We could go with album sales perhaps? Or if there's a good source somewhere saying "This band is a key group in nu metal", or something to that effect. That would be my proposal anyway: a source directly saying they're a big name, and/or album sales. Until that's sorted, maybe it'd be best to remove the bolding. After all, you could argue that if someone wants to see important names of nu metal, they can look at the article on the genre, rather than here. But what do others think? Prophaniti (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After 75 days of consideration, discussion and analysis of regular editors... Only myself and Prophaniti have explicitly stated their opinion but the bolding has been repeatedly reinstated. In that case, let's keep it and accept that which bands should be bolded will be a subjective and contentious issue. If anyone needs to un-bold or bold a band which has been bolded or un-bolded recently ... maybe make a comment in these things "<! -- -->" (no space after !) next to the band so other editors will understand your reasoning. Don't go overboard though, keep most discussion here. Cheers and good luck! :P  <font style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 10px;">Carbon Rodney 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The bolding of bands on lists like this clearly contravenes WP:NPOV, a core practice of Wikipedia. Let's face it, even a reliable source listing their "top 20 nu metal acts of all time" or similar is going to be contentious, but I guess if such a source were porduced it should be taken into account. Without it, edits that contravene NPOV should always be removed. In other news, I'm going to start adding some sources to the list. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre
This list is a little confusing, it seems to not be including some bands that are no longer considered "nu metal", shouldn't it include any band, past or present, given the correct sources, considered nu metal? Revrant (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, provided reliable sources are found. Omissions are probably because I'm the only person to contribute refs to this article, and I only started doing it yesterday. I'm fairly happy to leave any further changes to others at this point (it's not a genre I know an awful lot about or care much about, so think I've done my bit :-)). I'll keep watching the page, largely to make sure any refs being added are actually appropriate (i.e. no blogs, no forums, no webzines that don't have a professional staff or who haven't had their material print published by a third-party source). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
Did the author of Brave Nu World edit this page to add his own book in? Is that why we're relying so heavily on an obscure author in order to source inclusions that are not commonly associated with this genre phrase? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Actually, I added many of those links, and am not, as it turns out, Tommy Udo. The book in question (Brave Nu World) is certainly within the realms of WP:RS, being published by Sanctuary Publishing (ISBN 1-86074-415-X). His biography in the book states that he has written for Sounds, City Limits, The Guardian, Uncut, Bizarre, Metal Hammer and the NME. You pretty much can't get a better pedigree than that; not exactly obscure, is he? The references stay. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to labour the point, but... so "Tommy Udo" is also the name of a gangster in Kiss of Death, but a Google Books search pulls up a load of hits for the music journalist and his works (both books and magazines). You may disagree with him, but at Wikipedia we deal in verifiability, not "truth". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever his credentials may be, any statements made must fit the overall coverage. We should not adhere to the opinions of a single person. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
 * You appear to misunderstand the nature of WP:RS. Their inclusion on the list (with appropriate sourcing) is perfectly reasonable and repeated removal of exceedingly well sourced material is simply disruptive. I can easily find more sources for each band that you have removed from the list whilst POV-pushing, but it should not be necessary. There is nothing wrong with each of these bands being listed as multiple genres (as long as appropriate sources are provided) and specific genre style problems can be discussed on the individual band articles. For the purposes of this list however, there is no problem with their inclusion. Note that you are actually removing sources from more than Udo's book; you are also removing MusicMight sources (another reliable source; the material from Sharpe-Young's website has been published by the third-party Cherry Red Books), so this can be nothing other than POV-pushing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have no grounds for accusing me of POV pushing or disruption. There has been absolutely zero indication that MusicMight has ever been a reliable source. There is zero evidence that Sharpe-Young authored any of the content on the website. There is also no indication that sharpe-Young, MusicMight, or Udo are any level of musical authority. In reality, it is disruptive for you to repeatedly add poorly-sourced material when the consensus clearly differs from your opinion. We must take into consideration the overall sources, not adhering to individual sources. The bands removed do not list "nu metal" in their categorization or Infobox, because it was established through consensus that the overall sources did not reflect the mentioned bands as performers of "nu metal". One band, Hed PE, is clearly not a metal band, but a punk band, per sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
 * MusicMight is very much a reliable source, and edited by Garry Sharpe-Young; the content (or extant versions of it at date of publication) have been published in a third-party, independent source (in this case Cherry Red). But you misrepresent your position... firstly, you have only removed that artists that do not fit with your POV, whilst leaving plenty of other MusicMight sources you presumably have no problem with. Secondly, you have actually removed other sources besides MusicMight. These include professional reviews from Allmusic and Udo's book. That Udo is a music authority should have been obvious from the publications he has written for (listed above), including Metal Hammer; I actually missed out that he's written for Vox as well, as well as a NIN biography. The System of a Down Udo source is not a passing mention... he devotes an entire chapter of his book to them (and to Kittie for that matter). Sanctuary Publishing is hardly a vanity press either. This is an entire book devoted to the nu metal phenomenon (of which there are few), in which the bands you are removing from the list are featured prominently. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What POV? I removed bands that did not mention "nu metal" on the actual pages. It was decided that the genre was not sufficiently sourced for Kittie, for example, without any of my help. You do not have a clear understanding of what the phrase "POV" means. This is not my POV. It's been established by the sources that these bands are not connected to this genre term. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

(od)Let me start by saying MuisicMight is (based on my experience) a reliable source, and is almost always accepted as such. MM has been taken to the reliable sources noticeboard more than once, and consensus has always been it met the standards. Allmusic is a reliable source as well, not sure about Udo as I'm not familiar with that one. I agree with Ibaranoff that one should never let an individual source be a deciding factor, and should listen to what the sources are saying overall. However, in this case there are multiple sources, so I see no problem with the bands in question making the list. Landon1980 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Udo's CV is here. I think that pretty much says it all regarding his journalistic pedigree. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, he certainly is a well-established professional in this field and is a reliable source. There really isn't anything left to discuss here. Remember, Ibaranoff, verifiability not truth. Landon1980 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and these bands are not verified as being connected to this genre term. Read the above. There's absolutely zero consensus, and these sources are not sufficient enough because neither the user-edited MusicMight website nor Udo are considered genre authorities. I have not looked at all of the bands listed on the page, but the links I removed were for bands where it was determined that the phrasing is incorrect. Per verifiability, these should not be added, because they are not verifiable. I cannot make this any clearer than that. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I looked over the bands with single sources and took some out, based on the fact that the genres were not mentioned in the articles linked. Please do not take this as a reflection of any editor's opinion, as I willingly admit to not being familiar with many of these bands, and if these artists are significantly researched, these inclusions could be restored in the future. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * You can't go by the current content of a Wikipedia article as to whether a band is fit for a category, WP can't self-reference for content, only for organization. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that was what I was doing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * User:Allstarecho has restored the deleted content. Consensus is clear, everyone is in agreement except you, Ibaranoff. Landon1980 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. Don't twist things to fit your own opinion. Allstarecho's edit summary clearly shows that he wasn't acting upon any consensus, and implying a consensus when there is none shows a clear bias upon your part. There's no reason to include poorly-verified content. Instead of insulting others and treating them as if they have no idea what they're doing, how about taking my statements seriously? There was enough research done on some of these bands that found that the categorization was incorrect. There are sources that state that Hed PE, System of a Down and Incubus are not nu metal. Many other bands are poorly verified. It's bad enough that I have to fight edit-warring from individuals like Blackmetalbaz, but that you do not pay attention or take rules (I.E. WP:Verifiability) seriously, does not speak well for Wikipedia. This kind of behavior is why Wikipedia is not taken seriously. Many of these bands are about as "metal" as Mayor McCheese is the President of the United States. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * What exactly do you think consensus is, Ibaranoff? Out of everyone that has commented here you are the only person that feels that bands with reliable sources should be removed. Please read WP:CONSENSUS before claiming there isn't one, because there clearly is. Your personal opinion is just that, the sources in question are reliable. Landon1980 (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is when there is an agreement. Allstarecho has not agreed with anyone. It shows incredibly arrogance on your part to claim not only that my personal opinion guides my edits, but that consensus exists when it clearly does not. This type of behavior holds back articles like these, and prevention of providing any research or verification lowers the quality of the list. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Actually, the consensus happened just a couple of weeks ago here and this list was greatly culled and overhauled to bring it in line with WP standards. I see that you've nommed Nu metal for deletion and included this list in that nomination. I have removed this list from that nomination since this list just went through a deletion process May 25, 2009 at the link above. It's too soon for another. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 04:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the inclusion of bands that were found not to fit in with the phrasing per strong research fits WP standards. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Please see our policy on original research, Ibaranoff. What research you may have done is completely irrelevant, as is the current content of articles other than this one. There is a clear consensus in place, these bands with reliable sources stay. Landon1980 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello condescension! There are more sources stating that Incubus, Hed PE and System of a Down are not nu metal than sources stating that they are. This is not original research. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

(od)Incidentally, the current Metal Hammer staff writers are clearly still using the term "nu metal" in relation to these bands, as can be seen by their blog posts on the official Hammer site: here, here and here. System of a Down, Alien Ant Farm, Incubus and Hed PE are all mentioned. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Music Might
I have removed all Music Might references. No matter how professional-looking anyone thinks the site is, it's pretty hard to consider it a reliable source. Members can join for free and edit the genre and biographical information of bands as they please (much like Wikipedia). Except, on Music Might, one does not need to provide citations. Therefore, one could go to the profile of a band like Slayer and add "smooth jazz" to their genre list. In this sense, Music Might is less of a reliable source than a band's own Wiki page. I did not feel like taking the time to find new references for the bands whose sole source was Music Might. Therefore, it is up to us editors as a team to do this work.

-hsxeric (talk) 23:33, August 30th, 2009


 * Having just signed up to the site it appears that you are in fact correct. This is incredibly frustrating as in September 2008 when the site went online it was a perfectly reliable source as it was solely edited by Garry Sharpe-Young. What I want to know is whether you can edit MusicMight without signing in / editing anonymously... if you cannot, any page on that website solely edited by "Taniwha" should still be reliable as that is Sharpe-Young himself. But basically someone needs to buy a copy of his New Wave of American Heavy Metal book and use that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it occurs to me that we can still use any web-archived versions of Rockdetector as well; as long as Sharpe-Young authored it, it's a reliable source. Flag icons need to go, obviously, per WP:FLAG. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The archived FAQ for Rockdetector (as of February 2008) is here, confirming it as a reliable source, asit is solely authored by Sharpe-Young, and the content reproduced in the substantial list of Rockdetector books published by the third-party Cherry Red. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That FAQ does not refer to the current version of the site, which has a different name and appears to be created/edited by individuals other than Sharpe-Young. A website can go through a lot of changes over the course of several months. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Quite, though the point I believe I was making was that archived versions of the site are still reliable as sources, provided that they are prior to user-editing being enabled. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Glassjaw
I would not say Glassjaw is nu metal, they are metalcore and hardcore.--DABANANAMUFFIN (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

-hsxeric (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2009
 * I agree with you. But, there are TWO citations. So, unless you prove that the references are bad, Glassjaw has to stay.

Unsourced bands.
Why don't simply remove the bands without a source instead of adding the tag to them? And when a reliable source is found, simply add them back. ӣicҟin \\ talk with me \\ \\\\\\\\ 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert of move
I reverted the (presumably good faith) move of this article to List of bands considered to be nu metal, because:
 * 1. It was made without any talk page discussion.
 * 2. "considered to be" is terrible wording to have in an article title. It violates the naming principle for articles, and begs the question, "considered to be" by whom? UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
For the sake of avoiding edit-warring, would the user that added a WP:NPOV tag to the article like to state their case? As with any band list article, genres are obviously down to what journalists use and a sourced usage is by convention enough to include a band in a "list of genre X" article. What exactly is the neutrality issue? There's even a disclaimer at the top saying it's a list of bands that have been described as nu metal by professional journalists. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stated my case. You ignored the points I made. The fact that the sources aren't used to back up what you claim they back up proves that there is an issue here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Actually, you're right, the template I added wasn't the one I was looking for. I added the correct template. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Maybe it is a NPOV issue. I know one thing's for sure - being the "author" of this list doesn't mean that you get to revert every change made to it. It says right on the editing notes that if you don't want content that you initially wrote to be rewritten and changed periodically, you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Article in general - Format is awkward.
On a website where the "Edit" section is normally on the right, they stand out way too much in this list. ...<font color="#0000FF">mechamind <font color="#009900">9 <font color="#FF0000">0 ... 06:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources
There's a huge difference between stating that a band performs in a genre and that they play to a certain crowd. Multiple sources use the term "nu metal" to refer to the audience, not the band. This is an egregious misrepresentation of what is sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm therefore unconvinced you've even looked at the sources in question. They're unambiguous about it. Brave Nu World in particular is a book specifically about nu metal. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The books refer to late-1990s alternative rock in general. I'm not convinced that you've looked at the sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * No, it really doesn't, and the fact that I specified page numbers miht give you a clue as to whether I've read (and own) the book or not. There's specifically a section towards the end of the book that talks about artists that are not nu metal but related in terms of touring and the like (e.g. Kid Rock, Marilyn Manson), distinguishig them from the bands the author uncontroversially regards as nu metal, e.g. Hed(PE), System of a Down. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. These books do not say that Hed PE, Incubus, Snot and System of a Down are nu metal. They are discussed in relation to late-90s alternative rock. There are multiple sources stating that these bands are not nu metal, but rather punk or experimental music. By the way, do not threaten me in a user summary for removing unsourced content. You are more likely to be blocked for misrepresenting sources as you do. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm terribly sorry, but the sources do in fact support their inclusion in this list. I was not threatening you by the way, merely noting that similar sanctions as last time will be put in place if you return to your prevous disruptive behaviour. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, a neutrality tag? When the intro reads: "The list includes bands that have been described as nu metal by professional journalists at some stage in their career"? That's pretty specific. The list consists exclusively of bands described as nu metal by professional journalists... where does neutrality come into that? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's disruptive to repeatedly add content that is not backed up by the sources cited. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I cannot make it plainer than this... Brave Nu World is a book exclusively written about the nu metal movement, written by the professional journalist Tommy Udo. This, being published by the independent, third party Sanctuary Publishing easily passes WP:RS. All of the bands being removed are explicitly included in the book as representative members of the genre; page refs are included. On top of this, there are further refs to other sources, which are also unambiguous. These bands remain on the list. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've repeatedly pointed out to you, and you've ignored that these sources do not back up what is cited. I've never made any statement about the quality of the sources, only that they do not back up what is sourced. That you've ignored the very valid objection, edit-warred over this issue and assert a level of faux authority (kind of like a low-rent Eric Cartman) by outright telling me not to edit against your changes and opinion is why I am making an issue. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Alright, I'll bite. Page 231 starts a chapter on nu metal essential listening; it includes SOAD's Toxicity (p.242), Hed(PE)'s Broke (p.243), Incubus' Morning View (p.243) and an entire paragraph about the Snot tribute album Strait Up, containing the sentence "Snot were a band who could have potentially been a huge nu metal/crossover band". You an't really argue with that... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really figure into the bands being classified as nu metal, rather than simply being included because they were part of the late-90s alternative rock scene and include non-traditional influences in an overall fusion genre. Snot is a case where they could have been anything in the eyes of any reporter, which doesn't mean anything considering that the band dissolved after a brief period because the lead singer died in a car crash. They were mainly a hardcore punk/funk metal band. Saying that they "could have" entered into a genre doesn't mean anything. Strait Up imitates the styles of the singers who were friends with Snot's former lead vocalist, and has nothing to do with the style of music the band actually played. SOAD are commonly classed as experimental and progressive rock, Hed PE are classed as punk rock, and Incubus is classed as alternative rock. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * What utter rot. The Snot quote clearly isn't saying "they could have been a nu metal band"... it is obviously referring to whether they could have been huge or not! The list is explicitly for "nu metal essential listening", even distinguishing at the end (p.243) bands that contribute to the "roots of nu metal" but are not nu metal themselves (Udo lists Sepultura, RATM, Biohazard, Infectious Grooves, Beastie Boys, Run DMC, Faith No More, RHCP, Boo-Yaa Tribe, Public Enemy, Alice in Chains and Primus; pp.243-246). There is also an entire chapter ("Nu and Not Nu", pp.200-205) discussing what the author considers artists on "the edge of the genre"; none of the ones you appear to be fussed about are included... they are all included within the body of the book, which, as has been repeatedly stated is explicitly about nu metal. Further page refs available on demand; the book is in front of me. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And you ignore me once again. How convenient that you consider it acceptable to pick and choose which sources work for you, and to interpret the sources any way you see fit. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Also, since you admit that the citation for Kid Rock says that he is not a part of this genre, it should be okay to take that out. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

On sourcing
OK, User:Ibaranoff24 has requested admin interventon regarding this article, so I thought I'd make a few comments in response. Firstly, I'd like to point out a common misconception regarding list articles; it is perfectly possible for bands to appear on multiple "genre lists". For example, Dissection can happily appear on the list of death metal bands, the list of melodic death metal bands and the list of black metal bands, as long as reliable sources (e.g. from professional journalists) are provided. In fact, as part of a compromise following a previous discussion, we included the line "The list includes bands that have been described as nu metal by professional journalists at some stage in their career" in the intro to this article. The sources provided for the supposedly contentious inclusions here all pass WP:RS easily, but more on them later. A more important aspect of User:Ibaranoff24's edits to this article (and others) is that they do not seem to recognise the term "nu metal" as a legitimate genre classification... see for example deletion attempts here and here. However, these all ended in speedy closes as a cursory look Google Books reveals numerous published books dedicated to the genre, including the likes of Tommy Udo's Brave Nu World (which User:Ibaranoff24 claims I have been misquoting; of which more later) and Joel McIver's Nu Metal: The Next Generation of Rock and Punk. The term is also frequently used by Kerrang!, Metal Hammer, Guitar World (which has a whole book dedicated to it, including System of a Down and Incubus, two supposedly contentious inclusions, found ), MTV, Stylus Magazine and many others.

Regarding specific references, User:Ibaranoff24 claims that the sources don't say what they do in fact say. They initially claimed for instance that Tommy Udo was "an obscure author" whose journalistic credibility is presumably in question, despite having written for Sounds, City Limits, The Guardian, Uncut, Bizarre, Metal Hammer and the NME. His book Brave Nu World, (ISBN 1-86074-415-X, Sanctuary Publishing) is explicitly about the nu metal genre. Whilst User:Ibaranoff24 claimed "The books refer to late-1990s alternative rock in general", the sleeve of the book states "Veteran rock journalist Tommy Udo takes a long hard stare at nu metal through the eyes of the playas, the skaters, the whiggers, the wannabes and the detractors". Fairly unambiguous. Looking inside the book Udo makes is clear what he is defining as nu metal and what he is not. The bulk of the book is devoted to chapters on specific bands (namely Korn, Limp Bizkit, Staind, Linkin Park, Deftones, Slipknot and Kittie). Chapter 9 is entitled "The Second Wave and the New Nu Breed: Tomorrow's Major Players" (pp.148-199). It opens, "As well as major players like Korn and Limp Bizkit, nu metal has produced a strong second wave of bands who are less obviously in the rap-metal mould, and who appeal to a smaller and more defined fanbase." It continues, "There is a veritable plethora of second-wave bands, ranging from the good (Dry Kill Logic, Ill Nino, Papa Roach, (hed) pe) to interchangeable clones of the more successful players." He then proceeds detail a number of bands he sees as being the major players in this "second wave of nu metal", specifically Godsmack (pp.149-152), Static-X (pp. 153-159), Spineshank (pp.159-163), Orgy (pp.163-166), Papa Roach (pp.166-169), Incubus (pp.169-172), Mudvayne (pp.172-174), (hed)pe (pp.174-175), Deadsy (pp.176-177), Adema (pp.177-79), Apartment 26 (pp.179-180), Glassjaw (pp.180-182), Taproot (pp.182-183), System of a Down (pp.183-185), Dry Kill Logic (pp.185-186), Crazy Town (pp.187-188), Will Haven (pp.188-190), Puddle of Mudd (pp.190-191), Cold (pp.191-193), Ill Nino (pp.193-194), Disturbed (pp.194-195), Sevendust (pp.195-196), Coal Chamber (pp.197-199). Again, fairly unambiguous. It's made even clearer by the next chapter which discusses bands occasionally associated with nu metal but are not in the author's eyes (e.g. Marilyn Manson, Kid Rock etc.). Udo goes on at the end of the book to list what he regards as nu metal "essential listening; he includes SOAD's Toxicity, (hed)pe's Broke, Incubus' Morning View and the Snot/various artists Strait Up. The claim that the information is not in the source is therefore either dishonest or deliberately ignorant. Furthermore, this is not the only source being used... we have Joel McIver, Allmusic and a swift look on Google Books reveals others. Regarding SOAD, Stylus Magazine even goes so far as to state, "“But wait, these guys aren’t nu-metal! They’re too good!” So the cries will inevitably go, which speaks more to the initial prejudice the public has against nu-metal than to System of a Down’s qualifications for the genre. System of a Down do in fact bear all the hallmarks of a nu-metal band, but they play with such passion, complexity and bizarreness that many consider the label of nu-metal to be beneath them. And while that’s ridiculous, it is true that they are that far ahead of the curve—in fact, they’ve replaced Rage Against the Machine in my heart as the best pseudo-topical, bizarre, fucking rocking band out there right now. Not bad." The POV-pushing becomes even more obvious when you notice only a subset of sourced bands are being removed. Despite claims to the contrary, this is not an ownership issue, nor am I aware of any WP:CIVIL breaches on my part. The mentions are "blocks" were not threats merely an observation that User:Ibaranoff24 (an editor that has seemingly done sterling work on various film articles) has been previously blocked for edit-warring and sockpuppetry with regards to nu metal articles. Finally, I would ask said user to explain this edit summary... where has this been discussed by administrators? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My "history" is not particularly relevant to your behavior and adding sources which don't back up what is cited. And, by the way, I was accused of edit-warring and sockpuppetry. I never actually did anything that warranted being blocked. And referring to the articles I've edited as "nu metal articles" implies something that contradict what the sources actually say...and not what you imagine the sources to say. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC))
 * How exactly am I "imagining what they say" when I'm quoting them directly? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not, actually. You're putting words in the writers' mouth by assuming that every band included in that book is a "nu metal" band, when perhaps they are only included because the books discuss late '90s alternative rock/metal, punk and rap metal-type bands, and a lot of these bands toured together regardless of what musical style they performed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Did you read the (admittedly very long) paragaph above? It states on the sleeve that he is talking specifically about nu metal, not "'90s alternative rock/metal"... to quote again: "Veteran rock journalist Tommy Udo takes a long hard stare at nu metal through the eyes of the playas, the skaters, the whiggers, the wannabes and the detractors". I'm not going to cut and paste again, but I refer you to the direct quotes above regarding the chapter on the "second wave of nu metal"; all bands specifically mentioned in there are obviously inlcuded under the term, and ditto for all bands featured on a list of "nu metal essential listening". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop pretending that this is an actual genre when there is zero evidence of this. These books cover late-90s alternative rock/rap-rock type bands. "Nu metal" was used as an umbrella term for any form of music that rock journalists couldn't easily categorize as rock, hip hop, or heavy metal. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Aha! And we finally get to the nub of the matter! You don't recognise "nu metal" as a genre. Fair enough. I suggest you put the nu metal article up for deletion then :-). As it stands there are thousands of references for the term, and several books dedicated to the subject, so that's a losing battle, I fear, but one to fight over on that article, not this one. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nu metal, not real? A book with nu metal in the title is not about nu metal? Blackmetalbaz is right here. There is definitive proof that nu metal was a style and just because you don't like the term, that doesn't mean it never happened. RG (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The both of you look like fools for trying to back up claims with citations that don't say what you claim they back up. I want to make this as clear as possible: stop trying to misuse sources. Seriously. Keep this crap up, and both of you will wind up banned. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

POV-pushing
This is absolutely ludicrous. I've repeatedly pointed out that the citations do not back up what they are supposed to be used for, and the tags have been repeatedly been removed by the editor who added the citations. He also repeatedly adds an inclusion that even he admits is not verified by the source he used. Stop. Doing. This. Seriously. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC))
 * a) The sources do back up the claim, as detailed in the lengthy passage above that included direct quotes, from multiple sources, e.g. Tommy Udo and Stylus. b) The statement, "He also repeatedly adds an inclusion that even he admits is not verified by the source he used" is a definite case of "citation needed" :-). I suggest you take it to RfC, but I'd request you point them to the paragraph I wrote above as a matter of courtesy, as that contains the direct quotes and I'm getting rather tired of typing them out. Or take it to AfD again; that was productive after all, wasn't it? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per what Baz says, none of the content in this article is dubious.RG (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RG, being that you've repeatedly removed or added content that doesn't fit your POV, you are heading towards a long block as it is. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
 * In this edit, Baz very clearly states that the cite used to back up Kid Rock states that he did not perform nu metal. None of the sources used to back up any of the tagged inclusions make any such claim that Baz stipulates. The citations are clearly not sourcing what they are supposed to source, hence the tags. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Bands...
Norma Jean, Vanilla Ice and Max the Hormone are about as nu metal as Korn is death metal. They really should be removed from this list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.174.212 (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC) He released one album with influence... all bands have done that at one stage, that doesn't make them of that genre. Text and sound are different things.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.152.23 (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is significant evidence for the inclusion of Vanilla Ice. I.E., this. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. We've got reliable sources (or at least one - not entirely sure) citing Vanilla Ice as nu metal. There's not much we can do about this except for usurp Jimbo Wales and take over as rulers. --LordNecronus (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anonymous, if we were arguing against its inclusion in his Infobox, you would have a point. And, in fact, since Vanilla Ice is sourced as performing other genres of rock in addition to nu metal, his Infobox says "hip hop, rock", but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't appear here. He's still performing stuff that has been called "nu metal" by reliable sources, even if it is not the only genre he performs within. Cypress Hill is not purely rap rock, but that doesn't mean that they are not a part of that genre. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

It's misleading to have them linked here however, I mean, if we listed every band who's released material thats nu metal, the list would be huge. Its less confusing to have bands who have released the majority of their works under the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.129.249 (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That does kind-of make sense, but that same policy could be applied to, say, Anathema, who are considered pioneers of death/doom and gothic metal even though most of their material is not either. --85.115.54.180 (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't list every band ever associated with this term for the sake of listing them. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Disputed
It seems that a lot of these bands only have one source used to preclude their inclusion. Could we bring it down to the bands that are most frequently described as being a part of this genre in sources discussing their music? (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Go for RfC. The argument has been had time and time again, so hacking this out again serves no purpose. If you do so, please point them towards th relevant bits of the archive and AfD discussions. Cheers, Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a huge amount of selectivity here, and I find it odd that some bands which are generally not considered to be nu metal are listed here because of a handful of sources which state that they are, in contradiction to the vast majority of sources, whereas other bands and musicians which have only been referred to as "nu metal" by selected sources are not included here. As an example, here's a list of sources which claim that Rob Zombie is nu metal. Yet, he is not listed here.
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/1999/dec/20/artsfeatures1
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-88706525.html
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-88706525.html
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=4YiRcZ_4SwkC&pg=PT155&dq=rob+zombie+nu+metal&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=NIoAAAAACAAJ&dq=rob+zombie+nu+metal&cd=8
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=ILAzJcugjDsC&pg=PT1&dq=rob+zombie+nu+metal&lr=&cd=18#v=onepage&q=&f=false

So, how about removing some of the less substantiated bands, since you clearly aren't adding every artist termed "nu metal" by people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about? (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
 * If you think you have found reliable sources claiming Rob Zombie is nu metal, feel free to add them. You already put in an RfC, so let's wait for that. I think part of the problem is going to be that the bands you want removing (and let's not forget you've gone on record as saying you don't even regard nu metal as a real genre) are all fairly uncontroversial inclusions. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to you. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Over at Talk:Tool (band), there is another discussion disputing the placement of Tool in this categorization. Again, there is the argument, as with the bands that are tagged in this article, that one source does not preclude categorization if other sources contradict it, as is the case with multiple bands listed here. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

Is this argument going to get resolved? Because it looks like discussion has just stopped. Anyway, I would agree with the argument made above, "that one source does not preclude categorization if other sources contradict it, as is the case with multiple bands listed here". Although, I'm really only taking part in this debate to get Tool off the list; it's one single guy saying they're nu metal, which doesn't automatically make it nu metal, and since they're a controversial addition to this list, I think they should only stay on the list if more reliable sources are added (as is the case with System of a Down). That goes for all the other bands that only have one source (including Korn, who are considered to be nu metal by nearly everyone - which means a reliable source calling them nu metal shouldn't be too hard to find). --LordNecronus (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While Tool are obviously not a nu metal band, there are several other sources claiming they were, so their is reason to put them on the list(remember we use what bands are cited as, not what they are.) Sound of the Beast featured Ænima on Christe's list of nu metal albums, the rest of the albums on the list I feel were all really uncontroversial(Limp Bizkit, Biohazard, Korn, etc.) excluding a Rob Zombie album. Though Sound of the Beast had several other controversial lists(examples: Highway to Hell was listed as a NWoBHM album and Appetite for Destruction was a hair metal album.) RG (talk)23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Sound of the Beast a reliable source? I wouldn't say there are "several" other sources claiming them to be nu metal, though; at least, not ones I can see. On the article, right now, is one source that comprises of one person's opinion. I don't think that's enough of a justification to leave Tool on the list. I'm also doubting whether the one source used is even reliable in itself, but once again I'm unsure as to whether Wikipedia considers it reliable.
 * On a different and unimportant note, using what bands are cited as instead of what they are can sometimes cause problems - for example, I remember Strapping Young Lad being placed on the list of NWOAHM bands (article here), with a reliable source stating them to be part of the NWOAHM, despite the fact that NWOAHM only applies to bands from the US. Sometimes you've got to go against the reliable source, because sometimes it can be visibly incorrect.
 * Back on-topic: even with my argument here, I don't think just debating here is going to resolve anything regarding the placement of these bands (although, like I said, the only band on the list I object to the placement of is Tool - the rest I don't care about). We really need to come up with a solution to this. --LordNecronus (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal is actually a book by Ian Christe. I don't own the book myself, but I've read parts of it on google books. It's used in a few articles like the main heavy metal page which is feature article content, but it's like... well have you ever seen Sam Dunn's Metal: A Headbanger's Journey. Like the film it has some good points that metal isn't racist, sexist, or anti-christian, but also like the movie Christe puts some bands in categories that just don't make sense(other examples:Pantera are viewed as power metal in the book and Metallica's Black Album and Butthole Surfers as alt. metal.) One more source off the top of my head that cited Tool as nu metal is Guitar World Presents Nu-Metal. I do not think Tool are a nu metal band(when has Maynard James Keenan ever started to rap?), but their addition on this list might be justified. RG (talk)04:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment — rapped vocals does not necessarily mean that the band is "nu metal". See rap rock, rapcore and rap metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC))


 * (To RG) The Guitar World source also includes Fear Factory and Marilyn Manson, should they be on the list? As it is, even if the source is reliable, it doesn't specifically say "Tool are nu metal". Yes, the book has "nu metal" in the name, but it still doesn't identify Tool as a nu metal band. Not specifically. It needs to be a lot more direct. I'm still having trouble believing that Wikipedia actually considers sources like Sound of the Beast as reliable, though; maybe there should be a change of policy regarding books like that?
 * (To Sugar Bear) You're correct (rapping in metal =/= nu metal), however the fact that Maynard never rapped isn't what (if we didn't rely on sources) would exclude Tool; there's no hip-hop influence whatsoever, and they're very technically-oriented with their music while nu metal is universally quite simple. --LordNecronus (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The section seems to be more about Maynard and A Perfect Circle than Tool, although I didn't read it all properly. As a blanket solution to the issue in general, it would be best to identify a band as nu-metal or otherwise with multiple sources satisfying undue/reliable/var/etc issues on their own articles with clear consensus on their talk page (here is a bad place to discuss the genre of a specific band). The band could then be added to this list with a single ([?] having multiple refs for a single entry could become ungainly) reliable source to satisfy verifiability. If it is contested the editor could simply be directed to the band article and told to bring up the issue there if they're not satisfied. Rehevkor ✉  18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, your suggestion is that a band has to be identified (with several reliable sources) as a nu metal band on their own page before they're added to this list? That sounds like an acceptable idea if I do say so myself. --LordNecronus (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also agree that in order to list any band here, there should be a consensus on the band page. I don't know the exact reliability of many of the sources listed here, and a lot of sources seem to go on overkill in genre referencing, especially when other sources identify certain bands in a completely different genre - like Allmusic identifying Insane Clown Posse as a heavy metal band, even though it is a hip hop group. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Comment — Another related discussion on the categorization of technically-oriented bands as nu metal can be found at Talk:Mudvayne/Archive 1. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC))
 * If you want to contest the reliability of Sound of the Beast see Reliable sources/Noticeboard or see the main heavy metal talk page, but as of now it is considered a reliable source. As for the Guitar World cite, I doubt a company would put Air Supply's name on the cover of a book about hardcore punk. And we also have this which specifically cites Tool as a nu metal band. I think we are all in agreement that Tool really aren't a nu metal act, but the sources say otherwise. So their inclusion does have its reasons. RG (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They're a very controversial example, though. Including them isn't really going to solve anything; it's just going to piss people off. Sources or not, I think we need consensus. It's the only way this is going to be solved. --LordNecronus (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to comment on the band Hed PE. Significant coverage of the band, even the books which are being cited on this page, refer to it as a punk rock band, not a metal band. The fact that most sources consider them within a completely different genre than metal should indicate that this band should not be on this list. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Sorry, but "it's just going to piss people off" isn't a good argument against Tool's addition on the list. Also, Hed PE's appearance isn't controversial at all. I've never heard a song by the band, but multiple sources back up them with the label. Punk influences mean nothing. Papa Roach and SOAD had them. RG (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Papa Roach is not a punk band. Hed PE is. And those sources are wrong. Hed PE is clearly not metal or nu metal or anything. It is punk rock. More sources identify it as a punk band than a nu metal band. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I said punk influences, which Roach did have. "And those sources are wrong", read WP:RS. RG (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If one source identifies Funkadelic as a disco band, that does not override all of the other sources which state the opposite. That you don't understand this is the reason why the inclusion of bands like Hed PE and Tool on this list, despite overriding sources contradicting the sources used for this article, is why there is an argument. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
 * We're not talking influences here. We're talking being in a completely different genre. Lots of bands have punk influences. Slayer had punk influence. Hed PE is a punk band, not a band with "punk influence". (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
 * "despite overriding sources contradicting", care to start any sources that "contradict" these? You haven't given me or any of the other editors a valid argument on why these acts shouldn't be included. RG (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Every source on Hed PE, including books with "nu metal" in the title, refer to the band as punk rock, G-punk, or rapcore (hip hop + hardcore punk), not nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Have you actually read any of the sources? I highly doubt it considering you removed the group's allmusic review and several of SOAD's sources which specifically cite those acts as nu metal. RG (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read these sources? They do not say that. Stating "nu metal" in a review or article does not mean anything unless it actually says that the bands perform nu metal, which these sources do not specifically say. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Please read, it's that simple. Page 60 Nu Metal: The Next Generation of Rock & Punk, "One of the Most Promising of the nu metal new school, Hed (Pe)". Allmusic, review for Blackout, "How could their record have missed the nu-metal train to the top taken by contemporaries like System of a Down?" The sources you removed for SOAD: Sound of the Beast, specifically cites the group as nu metal on page 329, Stylus "System of a Down do in fact bear all the hallmarks of a nu-metal band". Baz already went through all of this. RG (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those sources state that Hed PE was a nu metal band. You're not reading them clearly. Having "nu metal" and a band name in the same sentence does not classify a band as "nu metal". It's like using a source that states that the band is not nu metal to state that they are. Allmusic in particular is using "nu metal" as an umbrella term for popular rock in the late '90s, and doesn't actually state that Hed PE is nu metal. And what merit does Stylus have for discussing and categorizing music genres? (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Here's another one. The review of Incubus' Morning View states:

"With each successive single that was released, the band gradually moved away from the nu-metal/Ozzfest crowd they had been initially lumped into and revealed the solid songwriting and talent for a good melody underneath the layers of surging guitars."


 * Which clearly shows that the reviewer is stating that Incubus is not nu metal, but had been mistakenly categorized as such. There is a news article which states that the band is not nu metal, but was mistakenly applied as such. There is enough evidence for Incubus not being associated with this genre term for them to not appear on this list. And, aside from one source, there is no evidence that Tool is nu metal, and the sources for Hed PE clearly do not back up what the person who added them claims. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Here are several sources stating that Incubus is not nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC))
 * http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hcftxqy0ldje
 * http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/music/older-wiser-still-fired-up/story-e6frf9hf-1111115668691
 * http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=TNTB&d_place=TNTB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10465D3AB83D74F1&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
 * http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WE&s_site=kansas&p_multi=WE&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1067144B8C1B235D&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
 * http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/85281588.html?dids=85281588:85281588&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+21%2C+2001&author=Richard+Cromelin&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Pop+Music%3B+*+*+1%2F2+INCUBUS+%22Morning+View%22+Epic%2FImmortal&pqatl=google
 * http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/orlandosentinel/access/130752581.html?dids=130752581:130752581&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+01%2C+2002&author=Jim+Abbott%2C+Sentinel+Pop+Music+Writer&pub=Orlando+Sentinel&desc=INCUBUS%3A+METAL+WITH+A+LITTLE+SHARPER+EDGE&pqatl=google
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-192269676.html
 * http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LVRB&p_theme=lvrb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0FD3949AAF719641&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

Once again, the discussion stopped. From what I can see, you're now all just edit warring on the main page. I really didn't want to have to break my hiatus, but this needs to get resolved, and edit warring isn't going to resolve it. So, let's round up the problems had here with certain bands placed on the list. The controversial bands are Tool, Hed PE, Incubus, Snot, System of a Down... any I'm forgetting? The huge blocks of text above me are a bit tldr, so excuse me if I've missed something already stated above. Anyway, the problems had here: So, are we going to resolve this like civilised people, or are we just going to add and remove the bands constantly until someone gets banned? (Note: I may not be commenting again, as I said I'm meant to be on hiatus and I'm already breaking my word just typing this up.) --LordNecronus (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tool only have one reliable source that states them to be nu metal (incidentally, I haven't actually seen the guy in question say, straight-up, "Tool are a nu metal band", as the exact quote hasn't been cited). The other sources either don't call Tool a nu metal band specifically, or have their reliability in doubt.
 * Hed PE apparently aren't called a nu metal band by any of the sources. I haven't read the sources in question, so I can't comment on this band.
 * Incubus. Apparently contradicted by several other sources.
 * Snot. Unsure of what the problem is.
 * System of a Down. This one's been contended for a while. Now, I'm a fan of SOAD, and I don't personally agree that they're nu metal, but they're reliably sourced several times - apparently. (I'm objecting to Tool's placement because I think the sources are dubious, which doesn't seem to be the case for SOAD.)


 * I'd like to add that, at one point, the phrases "hardcore" and "nu metal" were used variously to refer to the same type of music. I still assert that most of the bands listed here are hardcore punk-oriented, not metal oriented. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC))
 * (Yeah, I guess my hiatus is over now.) It could be argued that none of them are metal oriented, considering the backlash against the genre within the metal fandom, but the "nu-metal-is-not-metal" argument won't ever pass muster here (and for good reason). Now, back onto the problem. Tool, Hed PE, Incubus and SOAD have been argued, but not Snot. Not that I can see, anyway. What's the issue regarding Snot's placement on the list? --LordNecronus (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what was the issue regarding Snot's placement on the list? It's just, you (Sugar Bear) removed the tag calling their placement dubious. --LordNecronus (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the overall sources reflects them as a nu metal band, rather than a punk/funk metal band. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC))


 * As for System of a Down, I don't think there is enough justification for the application of "nu metal" in reference to the band, per the brevity of sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

New proposal
I suggest that each band included on this list should require a certain number of reliable sources stating, directly, that the band is nu metal, not that they were associated with nu metal, incorrectly grouped in with nu metal bands, etc., but that they are, in fact, nu metal. About 10 RS's should do it. It's pretty easy to find 10 sources for non-controversial inclusions (I.E., Korn). Does anyone agree? (Non-controversial inclusions don't necessarily need 10 sources, though.) (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC))
 * As someone unfamiliar with the history of this dispute 10 seems excessive. The subjective nature of genres fuels these debates so I suppose requiring >1 is reasonable but needing >2 or 3 strikes me as over the top. J04n(talk page) 19:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ten sources are without a doubt overkill. One or two would be fine. We currently have roughly 70 artists and groups on the list. Do the math, that's 700 references. Completely unneccesary.RG (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to have three (maybe four, if it's an especially controversial inclusion) sources that state directly that the band is nu metal. Ten is overkill, like RG said; we'd have a very empty list if we had to have ten sources stating a band to be nu metal. --LordNecronus (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this debate for a while, and I just wanted to throw in my two cents. I think two sources for undisputed bands, three for borderline cases, and four for highly disputed bands should be plenty. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 23:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the idea of two for undisputed, three for borderline, four for highly disputed (where highly means more than, say, three registered users are disputing it on this talk page). Asking for ten is absurd... can you imagine what would happen to, say, the List of death metal bands article if we needed ten refs for every band? The page would never load! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Using this proposal and taking, say, Incubus, this would need 3, or possibly 4 references. These could be this, this, pages 169-172 of Tommy Udo's Brave Nu World (which does state explicitly that Incubus are a nu metal band, despite what Sugar Bear has repeatedly asserted), this, this,, their inclusion in this, this... that took me five minutes; I reckon finding more wouldn't be terribly difficult. That list of refs already includes Maui Time Weekly, the NME, Rolling Stone, Guitar World, Metal Hammer and The Guardian. I'm not sure that you can pass WP:RS more thoroughly, to be honest, without claiming that the NME, Metal Hammer and Rolling Stone don't count(!). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I'm bored and avoiding marking :-), here's the requisite number for Hed PE (search is more difficult owing to the various ways they type-set their name): here, pages 174-175 of Brave Nu World by Tommy Udo (again, specifically cited as a nu metal band; please see Archive 1 for direct quote from beginning of chapter, and see here for blurb, specifically mentioning (hed)pe), here, here again, here (MusicMight is now user-edited but this material is written by Garry Sharpe-Young, professional journalist, and reprinted by a third-party source in this book, here etc. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * MusicMight's content is user-contributed, plain and simple. Those sources for Hed PE do not explicitly state that the band is nu metal. The sources for Incubus do not say explicitly that the band is nu metal. There are countless sources discrediting the inclusion of these bands. I do not believe that one source, or 2-4 sources are enough for disputed bands. Try 6-8. If the views of a single author are not controversial, you should have no problem finding 10 sources stating that Korn, for example, is nu metal, but that you are unable to find 8 or even 6 reliable sources suggesting that Hed PE or Incubus or nu metal. Let's try listing reliable sources for each band. The number we're trying to get up to here is 8. The sources for Hed PE state that it is a punk band (the ones that Blackmetalbaz posted, in particular), not a nu metal band, and Incubus does not have enough sources explictly identifying it as a nu metal band. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Speaking again as somewhat of an outsider, I would say the case for Incubus being labeled nu metal is stronger than the case for (hed)p.e. Of that group, Maui Time Weekly, the NME, Rolling Stone, Guitar World, and Metal Hammer seem to explicitly state that Incubus is nu metal. The Guardian is nowhere near as clear on that subject. Still, that's five sources, two of which (RS & GW) I would consider to be rock solid. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 06:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * MuscMight's content is indeed now user-edited; however, the books published through the third-party Cherry Red whilst Sharpe-Young was operating under the Rockdetector banner easily pass WP:RS, and that was what I pointed you at. Tommy Udo is unambiguous about the issue. Metal Hammer is equally unambiguous... c'mon, one of the world's biggest rock magazines making a "best of nu metal" CD and including them is pretty damning to your cause. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The act of merely providing sources is not overkill. It's perfectly reasonable, considering bands that are not disputed have hundreds of sources. Again, I'm not saying that we add ten sources to the article, just that we list them here. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I do think that sheer number of sources is unworkable and makes editing the article too unwieldy. Four is absolutely the most I can see as reasonable - ultimately we do have to accept that "nu metal" is inherently rather vague and subjective even as music genres go, and it's clear that the authors of reliable sources differ enormously over its definition. Speaking solely from personal view, describing for example Incubus as nu metal is bizarre - but it's clear that multiple reliable sources have considered them nu metal, and their inclusion is therefore appropriate. By all means require the citing of sources, but once multiple sources are provided that's as far as we can really go in editorializing about this list. If we start talking about the "balance of views" of reliable sources, or requiring huge numbers of them, we're basically performing original research in producing the list. ~ mazca  talk 12:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We also have MTV citing Hed Pe as a nu metal band, their inclusion on the list isn't controversial at all and is most certainly justified. I believe that our consensus here is for a band to appear on the list they must have a 1 source minimum to a 3-4 source maximum. Any questions? RG (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Justified in what way? It's incorrect to state that they are metal or nu metal when the sources stating that they are a punk band outweigh the sources for nu metal. And really, MTV? MTV was created to air promotional music videos. The key word here being promotional. It's a source intended to sell product. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC))
 * And as for Tool, as much as I disagree with them receiving the label, they do deserve to be on the list. Sound of the Beast, Rock & Roll: A Social History, and that Joel Mclver book indentify them as a nu metal act. RG (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Deserve" is the wrong word. Now, could I hear the exact quotes, with links to where the quote came from? I want to be sure they're actually being directly identified as nu metal. --LordNecronus (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well on page 329 Ænima is featured on Sound of the Beast's list of nu metal albums, Rock & Roll: A Social History by Paul Friedlander and Peter Miller on page 304, "Ozzfest embraced the so-called nu-metal acts: Korn, Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, Incubus, Godsmack, System of A Down, Papa Roach, Slipknot, Tool, Rob Zombie, and the all-female Canadian band Kittie." As for the Mclver book, I wouldn't know the exact quote because I haven't seen that page of the book on google books, but we also have an issue of Spin citing Tool as a nu metal band. "Deserve" is the wrong word", I know what you mean. I myself am not really that big of nu metal fan and a lot of bands hate the label, but we can't deny a band's association with it. RG (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wouldn't deny Tool's association with the term at all - they were one of the bands that directly inspired its creation, but there's a difference between "inspired it" and "was part of". Not that it matters here. Now, let's look at those sources... hmm... well, Spin definitely calls them such. I don't know how knowledgable they'd be on this subject, but they definitely, straight-up, call Tool nu metal. Sound of the Beast I'm still unsure on; it does get some things wrong, but it gets so many more right. I know it's only one album that they call nu metal, but one album is enough in my books. The Mclver book I can't comment on. The other source you have says Tool are "so-called nu metal", which indicates to me that it's not a clear "Tool are definitely nu metal" statement. They're unsure of the usage of "nu metal". Still, Spin and Sound of the Beast seem reliable-ish. I'm not trusting the Mclver source until I see the exact quote, and Rock & Roll: A Social History doesn't, to me, outright state that Tool are nu metal, just that they're "apparently" nu metal. --LordNecronus (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "but there's a difference between "inspired it" and "was part of"." good point, that's kind of like the "Faith No More argument" or the "Black Sabbath being doom metal argument". There's really no such thing as perfect sources. Personally I disagree with a lot of groups on this list. Examples including Evanescence, Godsmack, Puddle of Mudd, etc. don't make much sense to me(Evanescence I've always seen as more of a gothic metal act and the other two groups I believe are much more related to post-grunge), but I'm not going to remove them because they are sourced. Back to the subject at hand, I believe Baz might own the Mclver book or we could contact User:Danteferno who put the reference their for Tool in the first place for the quote. RG (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite a few bands end up lumped in with nu-metal for similar reasons; Evanescence being one of the most obvious examples - by far their largest hit, Bring Me To Life, was fairly unambiguously nu-metal in style even though it was pretty atypical of their usual output. I'm suspecting other bands that often feel a little dubious (such as Tool or Incubus) managed to release fairly nu-metallish tracks or albums during the height of the craze. Most did indeed receive coverage in that vein, and so they're pretty irrevocably "nu metal bands" in the eyes of some sources at one stage in their careers. And that's pretty much what we need to go by here - the primary problem is that to many of us labelling certain bands as "nu metal" just feels wrong. It's the Wikipedia way that we need to defer to reliable-source coverage when this stuff comes up, and it sounds like most of the disputed bands have indeed had significant coverage in that area. ~ mazca  talk


 * Forgoing all the personal opinion discussions above, I think that bands with significant coverage stating that they are not a part of the genre should not go on this list. For example, I posted a number of sources stating as such about Incubus, and the sources stating that Hed PE is a punk band outweigh those that state that it is a metal band. Also, I do not think commercial sources like MTV should be considered. When the source of the information exists to sell product, they cannot be considered an unbiased source of musical terminology. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I disagree about omitting bands with sources stating the opposite. For one, that's just a recipe for constant arguments over every single band added to the list - it results in what's basically original research in trying to come up with what the balance of sources says. I really think this article needs to simply be a list of bands that have been described as nu-metal at some point by multiple reliable sources - as the article really would be fundamentally unmaintainable otherwise, particularly given the negative stigma sometimes attached to the nu-metal label. ~ mazca  talk 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree there. The list should feature bands which have been consistently labeled nu metal. If we added every band that has been labeled with this term, we'd have a long, mostly-inaccurate list. Consistent sources can be found labeling, for instance, Korn, as nu metal, but to include punk and alternative rock bands here is utter nonsense. Also, I think that the sources should be checked better than they have been in the past. As I have pointed out, multiple examples included in these books with "nu metal" in the title don't actually referred to the included bands as nu metal. The "nu metal books" don't refer to Hed PE or Incubus as nu metal, for instance. The labeling here actually comes from journalists who tend to not know what they are talking about, not music experts. (Sugar Bear (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * To quite blatantly labour the point here, Tommy Udo does categorise both Incubus and Hed PE as nu metal (see direct quote in Archive 1). Now, you could claim he doesn't know what he's talking about with regards to music, but I believe the point about his credentials (and Joel McIver's for that matter) has been answered here. We once again appear to be approaching consensus (everything should be sourced, three sources for something a bit controversial, four for something heavily disputed was what has been proposed, and something I'm perfectly happy with) but a solitary user is disagreeing with that consensus (for Ibaranoff24 and Sugar Bear are one and the same). At what point are we going to follow WP policy and run with consensus? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have six editors in more or less agreement, and one that disagrees. I'd say that's pretty solid consensus. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blackmetalbaz, Udo does not categorize Incubus or Hed PE as nu metal. Read the actual source, instead of making up your own reality to fit your POV-pushing. None of these sources categorize these bands as nu metal. The fact that a significant number of sources state that these bands are not nu metal prove that they should be removed from this list. There's no consensus in favor of your POV. The consensus is clear that the bands should be removed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
 * The consensus is just the opposite of that. Please re-read the comments.  Most of the editors commenting here (Rockgenre, Blackmetalbaz, Mazca, and myself) think that if a band has been labeled as nu metal on multiple occasions, even if some sources say the band is not nu metal, it should be included in the list. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not enough sources identifying Hed PE or Incubus as nu metal for these bands to be included on this list. A band needs at least 10 sources for the inclusion to be justified. Too many sources used do not back up what the editors Rockgenre and Blackmetalbaz claim they are meant to back up, and several sources contradict the inclusion on this list. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
 * The consensus does not require ten sources. The current consensus, which is supported by six editors, is four sources. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 20:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. If we're still discussing this, there is clearly not a consensus. And there are not four sources which state that Incubus or Hed PE perform nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 20:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CON, nothing else needs to be said. RG (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:TROUT, there is no consensus. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
 * There is consensus. Sugar Bear, your line above - "If we're still discussing this, there is clearly not a consensus." The reason we're still discussing it is because you're refusing to accept that there's consensus. You seem determined to drag this on for as long as possible; no offence, but it's getting boring. --LordNecronus (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thirded. I would love to put this dispute to bed, and the only dissenting voice is Sugar Bear. If there are legitimate disputes about the veracity of some sources, then that's one thing - but declaring there to be no consensus at all as to the inclusion criteria simply because one editor won't compromise is another thing altogether. ~ mazca  talk 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fourth the motion that four reliable sources is more than enough for anything, a BLP saying that someone raped a child doesn't need four sources, labeling a band should not require more stringent sourcing than a BLP! J04n(talk page) 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fifth it. I think we have official consensus.  Four sources is enough for highly contested listings only.  Anything else should require less. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 00:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, now that we've officially got consensus, will the page be unlocked? --LordNecronus (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Second proposal
In addition to the requirement of 10 sources for the inclusion in this article to be justified, I feel that if several sources - such as the ones I have posted for Incubus, state that a band is not a part of the genre, it should not be included on this list. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
 * That has already been discussed above, and rejected, because it would lead to exactly the type of endless editing warring that is occurring here. As I stated, the consensus is that even if some sources say a band isn't nu metal, if enough sources say it is, it should be included. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, really, no. Ten sources is unworkable, and making editorial decisions based on conflicting statements in reliable sources is pure original research. No inclusion criteria for this page are ever going to be perfect, but this proposal strikes me as seriously sub-optimal - either this is a simple list of "bands described as nu-metal in some reliable sources", or it's basically unmaintainable and a constant dispute magnet. ~ mazca  talk 21:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the idea wasn't to put ten sources for each band in the article, but on the talk page. And I really think that when sources that state a band is not nu metal outweigh those that say that the band is, those bands should not be included here. Otherwise, if we're just going to list every band that's been categorized by this term, what was the point of having a discussion in the first place, if this article wasn't going to be improved? If the guidelines involving sources for this article are not changed, it should be renamed to List of bands that have been considered nu metal so that we can maintain accuracy, because as long as we're stating that bands that are not a part of this genre belong on this list, accuracy flies right out the window. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
 * You're really showing your WP:POV with this remark:"as long as we're stating that bands that are not a part of this genre belong on this list, accuracy flies right out the window". That is strictly your opinion on what band belongs to what genre.  Wikipedia is not intended to reflect the personal biases of its editors, but rather what reliable sources say.  I believe someone has already mentioned that putting disclaimers atop lists like these is somewhat common practice, something along the lines of "Bands on this list have been labeled as *insert genre* by a number of reliable sources."  I think that's a reasonable solution, as it reflects, again, what wikipedia is supposed to do. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 20:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That remark has nothing to do with POV, but when the sources state that a band is not a part of a genre, it's a fact that the band is not a part of that genre. Putting words into my mouth is not common practice on Wikipedia, is it? (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
 * This is getting muddled again. The point is, we have a consensus, which is: if four reliable sources say a band is nu metal, it goes on the list.  It doesn't matter if other sources say otherwise, because this is only a list, not a proper article.  Discussion, by quoting sources with opposing opinions, would be more appropriate for the Nu metal article itself.  Since this is only a list, it doesn't include discussion. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)