Talk:List of nu metal bands/Archive 2

Protected due to edit warring
I've fully protected this article as this particular persistent edit war has been dragging on for some time - it keeps popping up on my watchlist. Please attempt to reach some kind of consensus now, rather than pointing to old ones. Thanks in advance. ~ mazca  talk 19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The protection's now expired - as I'm obviously involved in this dispute now I'm not planning on taking any further admin action in regard of this article, but it certainly looks to me like we've reached general agreement as to inclusion. I do hope this is the end of the edit-warring for now. ~ mazca  talk 11:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations for Hed PE and Incubus
The current citations for Hed PE and Incubus do not actually state that these bands are nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
 * We have consensus. See aboe for consensus agreed between all editors asie frm yoursef, including two admins. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to add sources that do not back up what they are supposed to back up! (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Specifically, are you asserting that the books don't mention them at all, or are you saying that the specific quote doesn't actually identify them as "nu metal"? I haven't currently got either of the books, but surely discussing the actual quote we're sourcing here should settle this particular dispute one way or another. ~ mazca  talk 20:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These books variously mention many of these bands, but not all of them are outright identified specifically as nu metal. In some cases, a review, such as The Skinny (questionable source?) will use "nu metal" as an adjective, not actually referring to the music itself. Allmusic does this a lot. I still question the content of the Udo source left on the page. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Mazca: I already answered the query re: Tommy Udo's books at length elsethread, but have C&Ped it here for your opinion: "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." 20:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Joel McIver here opens his sectio on Hed PE with the line "One of the most promising of the nu-metal new school, Hed PE...". How exactly is that not directly citing them as nu metal? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds generally pretty unambiguous to me. The painful discussion one section up established a consensus among everyone except Sugar Bear to include bands in which multiple sources have, at some point, described as nu metal. The bits mentioned by Blackmetalbaz here seem to establish that for both the most-disputed bands. At this point I don't see what the justification is to continue this dispute, really. ~ mazca  talk 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mazca, blackmetalbaz is wrong here. These sources are not conclusive. They do not outright state that Hed PE or Incubus is nu metal. Having "Hed PE" and "nu metal" in the same book does not mean that the book is citing Hed PE as nu metal. Same goes for Incubus, SOAD, and everyone else. These books do, in fact, refer to alternative rock generalized, not nu metal as a single, consistent genre. McIver is using "nu metal" as an adjective, not describing Hed PE (a punk rock band, not a metal subgenre band) as nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I see no point in engaging in edit-warring, and hence will leave this dispute to the editors that have agreed to the consensus above for the time being. I shall note once again though that I have in good faith provided what is now a large number of reliable sources from print and online media that are being consistently removed from the article against agreed consensus. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, once again, with our established consensus. The sources clearly state that the disputed bands are nu metal. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. As stated above, the sources do not explicitly state Hed PE or Incubus as nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Question, Sugar Bear: "These books do, in fact, refer to alternative rock generalized, not nu metal as a single, consistent genre" - if this is the case, then where are Nirvana, Radiohead, Alice in Chains? If it was referring to general alt-rock, surely the most prominent nineties alt-rock bands would be included? --LordNecronus (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to take the easiest example - how on earth can you call the sentence "One of the most promising of the nu-metal new school, Hed PE[...]" anything but an explicit statement? I've come into this dispute not really being familiar with Hed PE's music one way or another, but I can't really reach any conclusion other than that they've been considered nu metal by some reliable sources. ~ mazca  talk 21:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider that one particularly baffling. However, the answer is a disbelief in nu metal as a genre in the first place; if we replaced "nu metal" with "death metal" would anyone be arguing this point? Really? However, no-one's going to convince AfD that nu metal doesn't exist, so that's a pointless avenue to explore. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These conflicts have been going on for roughly 10 months and this has been dragged out far too long. The consensus and sources are in favor of these acts and their association with this type of music. RG (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nu metal is a genre, it's just that Hed PE and Incubus are not nu metal bands. McIver even states that not all of the bands discussed in the book are nu metal. All of these books cross-associate late-90s alternative rock bands. The only connection that Hed PE and Incubus have to nu metal is playing on the same tours as some nu metal bands. That's not enough to associate them with the genre. I have thoroughly researched these bands, and the majority of the sources point to them not being nu metal bands, and the nu metal books do not explicitly refer to them as nu metal bands. "Nu metal" is frequently an umbrella term, having more to do with fashion or association with other bands than anything. Referring to Hed PE as "the most promising of the nu-metal new school" doesn't actually refer to the style of music they play, but that their clothing fits hip hop fashion rather than punk fashion, or that they play on the same tour as Korn. The sources are opposed to categorizing these bands as nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Including bands based on sources that do not exactly explicitly state that they are nu metal bands is a complete misrepresentation of the sources utilized. Many reviews toss around various terms, but don't always explicitly state that the music falls under specific genres. The Allmusic review of Licensed to Ill for example, uses the words "rap" and "rock" in a sentence, but doesn't call the album rap rock. It states "He made rap rock", in reference to Rick Rubin, meaning that Rubin "made [hip hop], rock" not that Rubin makes rap rock (the genre). The sources that are used to call certain bands "nu metal" are being used in the same way. In many cases, the books cited do not refer to the bands as nu metal at all, even though the title of the book contains the word "nu metal". (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Sources citing Tool as nu metal.
The consensus was that we have 3-4 sources on the article for contested bands such as Tool. I only see one for them. I'm not against their placement on here provided there are 3-4 sources citing them as nu metal as opposed to one. (And the sources actually have to say, outright, that Tool are nu metal, just to eliminate any grey areas.) --LordNecronus (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My thinking is this. A band can be listed with one source, but if it's challenged, more sources should be added to keep it from getting removed after a grace period of maybe a week. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Within the week, more reliable sources should be added, otherwise they get removed. Though, even if they're removed, as long as someone has the sources, they can be readded. --LordNecronus (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask about the one source Tool already has. Within the book, does it state whether Tool are nu metal? I'd like to know from someone who has the book, as well as the exact quote. --LordNecronus (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Check this link. From what I can tell, it looks like A Perfect Circle is called nu metal, sorta, but not sure about Tool.  Torchiest (talk | contribs) 19:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather from reading the link, A Perfect Circle are called nu metal, but it's kind-of vague on Tool. Would it be enough to add APC to the list? They're not too controversial an entry, but they're not really "safe" either. --LordNecronus (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A comment in regards to consensus on inclusion
A recent discussion on this page led to the consensus that if there was a dispute over the inclusion of a band on the list that four reliable sources supporting the inclusion would be sufficient for inclusion. Based on the amount of reverting going on on this page it appears that the result of the discussion was not agreed upon by all. Unfortunately that is often the consequence of a consensus, not everyone is happy with the results. The disagreement seems to be withe the bands Incubus and Hed PE, which each have 5 sources. If there is any question as to the validity of any of the sources please list individually on this page and explain why, otherwise per the consensus they should stay. J04n(talk page) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to take a side on the Incubus/Hed PE debate, but I'll just point something out: this source apparently citing Hed PE as nu metal mentions a single song rather than the band itself. I don't think we should put bands on here if it's a specific song being cited as nu metal as opposed to, say, an album, or the band itself. I haven't read the other four sources, but it looks like they'll hold up (and four is enough for Hed PE's inclusion). As a side question, if we are indeed using this source as a citation for Hed PE's nu metal status, does that mean we're including Machine Head and Fear Factory on the page? --LordNecronus (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That source is a blog. The other four sources do not state that Hed PE is nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I agree that the Metal Hammer source isn't strong. We could say, well they're saying the bands are nu metal, but that's WP:OR, and we can't do that. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 00:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The other three English sources seem to explicitly say hed pe are nu metal. Not sure about the Italian source.  I did a rough translation and it looks like it's calling them nu metal, but I'm not 100% on that. Torchiest (talk |

contribs) 01:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sugar, there is something here that I don't get. When McIver says that Hed (Pe) is "one of the most promising of the nu-metal new school" (and please double-check, or twice quintuple-check, the quote) what part of that statement makes you think that McIver is NOT saying that they are nu-metal? Please parse this for me. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, nu metal is being used as an adjective, not referencing the band's style of music. This occurs in many music discussions. The Allmusic review of Licensed to Ill for example, uses the words "rap" and "rock" in a sentence, but doesn't call the album rap rock. "Rap rock" only appears together in this context: "he made [hip hop] rock", with rock being used in the context of, say, "this rocks", rather than "rock music". If "nu-metal new school" was a reference to the style of music, "new" would be redundant, since the term "nu metal" first appeared in 1994. Hed PE are more prominently sourced elsewhere as a punk, not a metal band, and including them on this list on the basis of one source, at best (the three English sources and the Italian book do not explicitly refer to Hed PE as nu metal) is misleading. Including bands on the basis of sources that do not make any such statement is a misrepresentation of sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry, but using nu metal as an adjective to describe the band means they're calling them a nu metal band. That is precisely what we're looking for in these sources.  What could be more explicit? Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is false. Using nu metal as an adjective is not a reference to the actual music itself. We are not allowed to interpret the sources that way. See WP:NPOV. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

<--Yes, that doesn't make any sense at all, grammatically or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply put, the sources do not say that the bands Hed PE and Incubus perform nu metal music. What part of this is not understood? (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Even if the three sources here are not being misrepresented, once you take out the blogs (The Skinny and Metal Hammer), you only have three sources. I believe the agreement was that a band needed four reliable sources if disputed? I still highly question the use of the three current sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * The Skinny is not a blog, it's a magazine. It's even won an award: look here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchiest (talk • contribs)
 * What makes a magazine dedicated to "informing people about Scottish culture" experts in music genres or American punk bands? (Sugar Bear (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * OK, another thing, in addition to my above observation, the review actually says "their medium is a nu-metal pastiche", which, again, is using the term as an adjective, not referring to the actual music. It's referring to the reviewers perception of their lyrical attitude, which is incorrect, since New World Orphans is a political hardcore punk album, and Hed PE's lyrics do not focus on "pain and personal alienation". (Sugar Bear (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * The Skinny is a reliable source for pop culture, plain and simple. The statement "their medium is a nu-metal pastche" is a direct comment on the stle of music they play! There's absolutely no other way to interpret it. The repeated comments about "nu metal just being used as an adjective" make no sense, and possibly show a misunderstanding of English grammar. If a reviewer said "Cannibal Corpse are a death metal band" that means they play death metal. Simple as that. If a reviewer says Hed PE are one the most promising of the nu metal new breed, that means they play nu metal. Simple as that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to the Incubus sources:
 * http://www.mauitime.com/Articles-i-2008-03-20-175945.112113_Incubus.html does not refer to Incubus as nu metal. Implies that Incubus was miscategorized as nu metal, thus pointing to the band not being a part of the genre. Article is written by a journalist, not a music expert.
 * http://www.nme.com/reviews/incubus/5358 Actually does call Incubus "nu metal". But author is a journalist, not a music expert.
 * http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/92872/review/6068090 does not use the term "nu metal". "New metal" means that the band is new and performs metal, not nu metal.
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2002/jan/19/artsfeatures2 Author is a journalist, not a music expert.

That leaves Udo's book, which I cannot get ahold of, so I'm doubtful as to its actual content. (Sugar Bear (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * "It's referring to the reviewers perception of their lyrical attitude, which is incorrect, since New World Orphans is a political hardcore punk album, and Hed PE's lyrics do not focus on 'pain and personal alienation'." Do you not see how this statement is purely your own opinion?  I give up.  I'm tired of this.  You're clearly focused on pushing your POV through no matter what. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is so insulting to my intelligence. I have done my research about this band. You have not. You do not read the sources, and so you make statements based on invented perceptions of POV. These are not my opinions, they are facts, based on the sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * "I have done my research about this band. You have not." <B>WP:OR </B> <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

<--Sugar, in reference to your four bulleted points above: I'm not sure what you mean with research, but if a person would want to call, say, Incubus a nu-metal band (with or without hyphen), and they would have these four sources listed as references, then any removal of such information is disruptive and really vandalism. Can we get a consensus on that? Drmies (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC) <--Sugar, what exactly do you mean by "music expert"? Music journalists are what we use for pop music genres! Not too many academic journals dealing with heavy metal and punk, y'know... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Maui Time article says, "Incubus was one of the few Nu metal bands to survive the purge of the millennium." So they called Incubus a Nu metal band. Finis. (Unless you want to say that that paper knows nothing about music.)
 * The NME is, ahem, a rather notable magazine on music, and that author has more credibility than, say, a nameless Wikipedia editor. (Are you really going to argue that a journalist who writes for an established music magazine is "not a music expert"?)
 * In the Rolling Stone review, you missed the hyphen in the very first sentence: "new-metal." That means that this is not a metal band which is new.
 * The Guardian is one of England's leading newspapers. They define what on Wikipedia is called "reliable sources." Someone who writes things and has them published in that paper, and gets a pay check for it, that person typically writes the kind of stuff we typically accept on Wikipedia as the basis for articles.
 * Torchiest hasn't said anything insulting. "You do not read the sources, and so you make statements based on invented perceptions of POV." So we're all just a bunch of black kettles who don't read despite the specific quotes we use from reliable sources? We have an absolutely huge consensus and a load of proper citations. There is not a single argument against the inclusion of these acts. These months of edit warring simply aren't justified. RG (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What "proper citations"? Half of the citations are not written by music experts, and the other half don't back up what they are supposed to say! And invoking "pot and kettle" is outright slander, and absurd coming from the likes of you. My points stand as valid. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * "absurd coming from the likes of you" That was rude and not necessary. If you a problem then comment on the article not a user in an offensive way. RG (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypocrite. (Sugar Bear (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

Let's keep our comments on the edits/article and not each other. As for the 4 references in question, IMO the Guardian and NME one's are unquestionable good, the Maui one weakly good. For the Rolling Stone one at first glance I was going to agree with Sugar Bear, Pat Blashill should be familiar with the term 'nu metal' enough to spell it properly but looking at the review the album is compared to Staind which there doesn't seem to be any doubt about their inclusion on the list. So I decided to find a review of a Staind album from the same year in Rolling Stone and found this which also says 'new-metal', good for Incubus. Now to be honest with you all, I really don't know what nu-metal means so I looked at the page for it where it says that Korn was the first band identified as 'nu-metal' in 2003, both of these reviews are 2001. So I don't think any references that predate 2003 should be acceptable. So my long-winded explanation leads me to stick to my initial thought and say that the Rolling Stone ref is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J04n (talk • contribs)
 * The nu metal page says 1994, not 2003, and it has a valid reference. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 21:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the Rolling Stone bit from 2001, saying they called them "new metal" because they're a new band that's metal is just false, as Incubus formed in 1991. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 22:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The album is new and Rolling Stone considers it metal, thus "new metal". (Sugar Bear (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
 * The exact quote is "new-metal band". It's not referring to the album. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 17:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also find it hypocritical that Bear believes The Guardian isn't a reliable source and yet he is the one who used its website with the very same author he claims is "not a music expert"(Dave Simpson) to reference Rob Zombie. RG (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * RG, I only added those sources and Rob Zombie to make a point that editors like you go overkill with your insistence on listing every band regardless of whether or not they were generally categorized as nu metal. Get real. (Sugar Bear (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Not sure what I was looking at with the year there. I'm going to have to reverse what I said on my last post, since Rolling Stone referred to both Incubus and Staind as 'new-metal' during the same time period I would count it.  Also, as Torchiest points out, Incubus was around for ten years so wouldn't be considered a 'new' band. J04n(talk page) 09:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. That's not what I said.
 * 2. "New metal" does not mean "nu metal".
 * 3. Isn't the fact that these bands were formed before the term "nu metal" was invented an indication that they do not perform "nu metal music"?
 * Use some common sense, please. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Can you explain why in this edit, you're using the exact same source to cite a claim, when you're stating here that the source is invalid because it's a journalist and not a so-called "music expert"? <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 17:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So on two occassions Bear has used sources he deems unreliable. Well so much for pratice what you preach. Now let's get back to the subject at hand. One editor vs many editors and sources. Humm...guess which side has the consensus? RG (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Torchiest and RG - the source was not used to describe any band as a genre, but to call "nu metal" an umbrella term. Such a statement does not need a source by a music expert. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
 * You are changing the rules on the fly to suit your needs. Who determines what needs a "music expert" and what requires merely a journalist? <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is honestly getting a little silly now. Sugar Bear essentially seems to be making up additional stipulations for sources to be usable, which have no basis in any policy or consensus. It is rather obvious from this discussion that the two questioned bands have ample sourcing to warrant their inclusion, and that all bar one of the participants are willing to accept that fact - I'm hoping that this is the end of any edit warring on the article over this subject. ~ mazca  talk 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Torchiest and Mazca - I am not doing any of these things. This is ridiculously absurd. We all know that these bands aren't well-founded enough to appear on this list. Try doing a little research before stating your personal opinion as fact. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
 * You're the one that's suggesting we only include opinions from 'music experts' (definition unclear), objecting to the use of articles by journalists in reliable-source newspapers. It's not something supported either by WP:RS or any discussions here. ~ mazca  talk 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Biography of Incubus
This link seems pretty definitive. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 17:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The remark doesn't seem to be too serious in nature, since it's talking about the band's large female fanbase, in contrast to other rock bands with DJs that have male-centric fanbases. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
 * You are 100% engaged in WP:OR at this point. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What OR? Your posts make no sense. Here's a hint: do some more research! One source does not a band genre make! (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
 * "One source does not a band genre make!" No, but six do.  I'm almost to the point of thinking you're just trolling now.  Seriously, this discussion is over. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 18:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made several valid points which you and the other editors here have ignored because of your own biases and refusal to look at the sources. The majority of the sources do not preclude the inclusion of several bands listed here. Why are you not getting this? (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC))
 * "In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Incubus were that rare breed: a nü-metal band with both a DJ and a hefty female fan base." Directly from the article. I don't see how you could argue with this citation. That's about as direct a citation as you can get. --LordNecronus (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In fact, that should be added the article itself. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt about the validity of this reference. J04n(talk page) 22:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So we've concluded three things: One, we an incredible majority. Second, the sources are without a doubt reliable. And finally third, as Torchiest stated earlier, "Ibaranoff/Sugar Bear" is just focused on his opinion. At this point it's simply vandalism to remove the groups. Now can we please all just put this to rest? RG (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also want to put this to rest. There are a couple of bands (well, one) I think should be talked about, but hopefully those talks won't be as ridiculously drawn-out as the above debates (if you can call them debates). --LordNecronus (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * RG, this is absolutely false, and if you wish to be taken seriously as an editor, you should stop slandering other editors. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Sugar Bear, leave the personal issues out of this. It's hard to put an end to this when you keep trying to start an outright argument with other editors. --LordNecronus (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * RG accused me of POV-pushing in order to start an argument with me. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC))


 * As far as Rolling Stone goes, musicians have talked about how much it sucks for years. Frank Zappa's songs referred to RS in derogatorily. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
 * This is the same as saying "some guy" didn't like Rolling Stone, therefore it's not an RS. I'm sorry, but you've got things completely backward at this point. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 18:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sugar Bear: "RG accused me of POV-pushing in order to start an argument with me." - You are blatantly POV-pushing. I don't even know why you're still trying to continue this pointless debacle. --LordNecronus (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But I am not POV-pushing. Continuing to say so is outright slander, regardless of who's saying it. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Thank you Necronus for the support. Bear, you are editing based on personal opinion, nothing more. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are. You're obviously very protective of these two acts and you don't want them to be assoiciated with what you consider a "useless catchphrase." Me and several of the other editors disagree with some of the bands on the list, but that doesn't mean we're going to remove because our thoughts differ. It truly is meaningless to carry on with this debate. RG (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bear, you are editing based on personal opinion, nothing more. I am not. You are. Do you really have no idea what you are talking about, or are you just trolling? (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Defensive, aren't we? I suggest you take a short break from Wikipedia to get your head sorted, Bear. It worked wonders for me. Maybe when you come back you'll be less inclined to continue this little piece of genre wank. --LordNecronus (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Maui Times source
Sugar Bear, the title of that article is "Incubus: Sole survivors of the Nu Metal apocalypse descend on Maui". The entire piece is about Nu Metal, and you're very fond of citing it when it suits your needs. Now please, either accept the fact that it specifically calls Incubus nu metal, or remove the source from all the other places you're using it. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 19:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of logic is that? It doesn't call Incubus nu metal. There's no reason to remove the citation from sentences in which it actually does back up what is stated. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
 * The source says: "Incubus was one of the few nu metal bands to survive the purge of the millennium". That is not ambiguous in any way, shape, or form. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 23:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty straightforward. So Bear, please don't try to cause conflict and do not remove the source. RG (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you two try doing some research and not including sources that don't back up what they're supposed to, so this page isn't filled with bands that this term wasn't widely, consistently applied to, with citations that don't say that the bands actually perform nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Would you please explain to me how the quote I posted above is not saying that Incubus is a nu metal band? I'm sincerely confused as to how that could be interpreted in any way other than saying Incubus is a nu metal band. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother continuing to waste your time in discourse. The matter has been laid to rest, unambiguous consensus has been reached (and validated by at least two moderators with no vested interest), and the sources are explicit. Any removal of them to POV-push is essentially vandalism at this stage and should be reported as such. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Noisecreep
I see no reason why this website wouldn't pass WP:RS. RG (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's part of AOL, I would definitely say that's reliable. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Why would being an AOL spin-off make it a reliable source? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They only have professional staff "bloggers" over there. For example, Jon Wiederhorn.  He's as legit as they come.  He's written for Rolling Stone and Allmusic for years and years. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 11:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough then! Cheers for clearing that up! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Umbrella term"
I don't think this is needed in the article, because the nu metal wikilink contains the information about umbrella term already. It's needless filler for this page. The point of this article is to merely list bands in the genre. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 03:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's sourced. (Sugar Bear (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Just because something is sourced, that doesn't mean it's necessary. It's just extra words that have no real content.  Aren't genres in general "umbrella terms" for groups of music that sound similar?  You've got your umbrella term language on the main genre page already; it's redundant here. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Trapt
How is Trapt nu metal????? They do not use seven-string guitars, turntables, sequencers, samplers or anything that has anything to do with nu metal. Allmusic lists them as nu metal but they are an unreliable source that constantly misslists genres and they always spell nu metal wrong. Yawaraey (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yawaraey is disputing the listing of Trapt, so let's discuss it. We've previously decided by consensus that if a band's listing is disputed, additional sources should be found to back up the listing, with a grace period of one week. Allmusic has been long accepted as a WP:RS, so if you take issue with that, you'd have to argue it elsewhere. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and we don't go by genres listed for artists, but if a review says they're nu metal, that counts as a good cite. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Evanescence
Is Evanescence metal enough to be included in this list ? A few nu metal riffs does not make a band metal. <span style=" text-decoration: none; font: normal small-caps bold 11pt Arial, Sans-serif; color:#88CC88">zubrowka <span style=" text-decoration:none; font: normal bold 9pt Arial, Sans-serif; color:#002200">74 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two sources saying they're nu metal. If you have a major problem with it, you could ask for another source saying the same thing. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with anything. It's just that the article about the band has a style section citing 4 sources for "Gothic metal", as many for "Gothic rock" and a few other styles here and there. Although they draw influence and elements from that genre, I wouldn't say they are nu metal in a major way. It's not their main sound, anyhow. <span style=" text-decoration: none; font: normal small-caps bold 11pt Arial, Sans-serif; color:#88CC88">zubrowka <span style=" text-decoration:none; font: normal bold 9pt Arial, Sans-serif; color:#002200">74 19:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Evanescence are definitely not mainly a nu-metal band (I'd contest "gothic metal" as well, but that's definitely not a battle I can win), but like Torchiest said, there are two sources citing them as such, and they're not so far-removed from the genre that WP:IGNORE would apply in this instance. I personally feel there should be at least one more source to justify their placement on the list; it shouldn't be too hard to find one. --LordNecronus (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whereas, Hed PE and Rage Against the Machine are very far removed from the genre, but I can't get anyone to listen to the obvious. Don't expect any support from me in regards to your quest to have Evanescence removed from this list, Zubrowka. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
 * I do not believe the allmusic source supports Evanescence's inclusion. It states "The other half of the album does include flashes of the single's PG-rated nu-metal ("Everybody's Fool," "Going Under")." and that is all about nu metal. So really, like the source says, the band have one or two nu metal songs, Bring Me To Life being one of them, but 'nu metal' is not applicable to the music of Evanescence as a whole. As for the Rolling Stone article, I get redirected to the main page of Rolling Stone; I don't know about other people. So overall, I'd say I've not actually seen an article which describes Evanescence; their music in general; as "nu metal" so their inclusion here is unwarranted without other sources being found. Munci (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Blender and PopMatters? (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Ah. I was just looking at the sources on this article. It seems the popmatters article only describes the riffs as nu metal that they are "mucking around" in i.e. not even all their riffs are nu metal. Aaand also the male fans of Bring Me To Life. As for the genre it uses to describe Evanescence, that seems to be modern rock, if not hard rock, both mentioned further up the page than the riff comment. Or else perhaps "dark, heavy rock music" nearer the end. But only one of those (hard rock) counts as a genre as far as wikipedia is concerned I think. Munci (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Source/citation problems
The citations for Joel McIver's book still haven't been fixed. For example, page 27 only mentions the bands A and A Perfect Circle, but it is being used to cite several other bands further into the book. Also, Musicmight is a user-edited source, and is not reliable. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Machine Head
The source says that the band released one nu metal album, not that they were a nu metal band. There's a source that describes Slayer's Diabolus in Musica as nu metal, but you don't see anyone trying to categorize Slayer as a nu metal band. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC))
 * An allmusic review also claims that they are a nu metal group (it uses the interchangeable term "aggro-metal.") RG (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus in sources that "aggro-metal" is another term for nu metal? (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC))
 * See allmusic's alt. metal entry. "Aggro-metal" was actually used fairly often (Piero Scaruffi for instance still refers to nu metal as "aggro-metal"), but eventually nu metal caught on more. It's kind of similar to "downer rock" being replaced by heavy metal. RG (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine
Before Sugar Bear and Rockgenre get into another edit war, let's discuss this and follow our previously agreed upon procedure. If a band's listing is disputed, the proper method to resolve it is to post to the talk page, saying you don't think the band should be on the list. Then, there is a one week grace period to find additional sources. If insufficient sources are found after the week is up, the band can be removed. Simple process that keeps it from getting ugly. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 02:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering, if we're still listing bands with insufficient sourcing, why isn't Tool on here? Didn't they have two or three sources describing their music as nu metal? (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
 * I believe they only had one. I think it was LordNecronus that challenged that listing.  No one came up with any more sources after a week, so they were removed without any more fuss. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 02:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 02:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I found several sources that called Tool nu metal (albeit I disagree with them being an actual nu metal band) including Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast, a book called Rock & roll: a social history, and an issue of Spin, that I mentioned earlier on the talk page. RATM are definately not a controversial inclusion on the list, Joel McIver has also called them one of nu metal's pioneers. RG (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since the listing was challenged, it will take multiple sources to re-list Tool. If you've got 'em, go for it. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 02:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that rage against the machine are nu-metal, they're more like proto-nu or influenced nu-metal bands, but they were mostly rap/funk metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.184.161 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of bands
Recently, some editors have been removing Rage Against the Machine from the list. I think that the inclusion of this band, along with Hed PE, is the result of severely poor research, considering that these bands are more widely sourced as performing in other genres - RATM is sourced as rap metal, and Hed PE as punk rock. There's no significant evidence that either of these bands should be included on this list. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC))
 * This might be handy. Munci (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There will always be this kind of drama over nu-metal because it is a vaguely define genre, a mash of several different styles. This can be meant to include some band defines as rap-metal or punk-metal. Even if you stick with strict sourcing there will be conflicting classification. <span style=" text-decoration: none; font: normal small-caps bold 11pt Arial, Sans-serif; color:#88CC88">zubrowka <span style=" text-decoration:none; font: normal bold 9pt Arial, Sans-serif; color:#002200">74 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bands
some of these bands are not nu metal at all, rob zombie, puddle of mudd, rage against the machine ect this list needs to be cleaned up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedmyeyes (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC) also Evanescence, GodSmack and Staind don't fit the genre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.222.241 (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Machine Head??
Im telling you right now, stop putting Machine Head as a nu metal band. None of their music would be classified as such. None of their music has any rap elements in it. Nor does some other bands on this list, but someone else mentioned that already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.56.183 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Go listen to Supercharger and The Burning Red. --LordNecronus (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Flags?
Lot of flags since I last looked at this article.. I don't see where this is supported by MOS:FLAG, especially considering the flag is totally irrelevant to the band and the genre and seem to be used purely for decoration.. The MOS states not to emphasize [sic] nationality without good reason, and I see no reason here. Rehevkor ✉  14:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Saliva Link
The Saliva link doesn't go to the band. 24.32.85.34 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

More bands
The list seems really short. I mean come on, why the hell aren't V-Mob and Blindspot in the list? You can't get more nu-metal than V-Mob and Blindspot!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.119.83 (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Flymore as Nu Metal
I'm not sure if I've seen this here before, so if I'm in error and this belongs elsewhere, please let me know. I can type in "flymore nu metal" and receive many results stating that they are, although they would not be considered "reliable" according to wikipedia. One bit off of their reliable source page did have this to say, however:

"Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources." - from here

It states quite plainly on Flymore's personal site, and on their myspace page that they update personally (though a myspace page isn't really reliable.) Is a band's personal web page unreliable, and if so, help me understand why. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hylianux (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Skindred as Nu metal
I'm not understanding how that first source didn't support the claim... I thought it stated quite plainly that they are a nu metal.

The second source, you're right, did not precisely state that they were nu metal, although I figured that Benji's statement of "nu reggae", a nod to being nu metal and reggae, to which the term nu metal can be inferred. Still, if an inference to the term is not good enough, I can accept that. What is wrong with the first source?

Here are the sources for this band, for easy reference: source 1 | source 2

Hylianux (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Google Books one looks ok to me, if reliable. The LV Mercury doesn't really support it, it anecdotally mentions how they're incorrectly (?) branded as nu-metal by the press, it doesn't actually call the band nu-metal. Rehevkor ✉  22:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Google Books link is to what seems to be a Philip M. Parker book, who doesn't actually write books, but generate them, so it can't be considered reliable. Rehevkor ✉  22:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this one ok? It's by an IGN reviewer, Justin Falzon, and he states: "The conventional nu-metal leaning that looms over it all is a little distracting, especially on, "Bruises." "

Hylianux (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "nu-metal leaning" doesn't go as far as calling them nu-metal. This is a contentious list and we generally need rock solid sources. I'd use this to support but on it's own it doesn't really stand up.. Rehevkor ✉  22:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I went through a dozen or so pages of Google results myself and couldn't find anything concrete, alas. Please also be aware this is all just one person's opinion.. Rehevkor ✉  22:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to beat this into the ground lol, I just really embrace the genre (whether many consider it a concrete genre or not) and wish to put as many nu-metal labeled or heavily influenced enough to be considered nu metal on the list. I found an article on metalstorm.net stating that they are a reggae-influenced nu metal band. It's a webzine that is not user-edited, and this particular article was written by one of their moderators. before I post the link, is metalstorm.net a valid reliable source? (what i mean by non-user-edited is that once someone posts something, no one can go in and change it. It is accepted on their site, at least, as fact, regardless of the opinions stated in the comments.)Hylianux (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Hylianux (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to have been any conclusive discussion on the reliability of Metal Storm. REVSIT has it listed as "Non-professional", so I'm not sure it can be considered reliable in terms of genres if their reviews are considered as such. So to conclude.. I don't know :P Rehevkor ✉  23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think I found a source from exclaim that supports it... Stuart Green describes Skindred's music as dancehall nu-metal. Exclaim is among the list of proper review sites in that list you gave me.  Is this one conclusive enough?  source
 * Here is also the one from metalstorm that plainly states it. While metalstorm may be questionable, I think that all 3 of these put together would support the claim, right?  metalstorm sourceHylianux (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I think it's good enough :] What the hell.  I'll post it back to the site with all 3 sources (omitting those first 2).  I'm feeling kinda bold.  Feel free to remove it if it's not sufficient, and I'll keep looking for other sources.  At the very least people clicking on skindred will be introduced to even further genres of music.Hylianux (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Metalstorm is not professional, so must never be used as a source. Not sure about the Google Books result, but Exclaim is fine. However, as other editors are questioning their inlusion, you'll need another couple of rock solid sources if you don't want it to be removed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Evanescence
Probably worth discussing the Evanescence entry. While they likely are classed as nu metal by the press, the two attached sources do not support it.

Rehevkor ✉  21:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Allmusic: no mention of nu metal.
 * Rollingstone: Seems to be a dead link, redirects to generic artist page.


 * I'm not against the inclusion of the band should sources be found that support the band as whole being nu metal. In any case, you might want to read the earlier discussion on this talk page if you haven't already. Munci (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll check that out. But either way, new sources are required if anyone else wants to re-add them to the article. I am neutral on whether or not they are actually nu metal. Rehevkor ✉  02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm personally quite surprised at the difficulty finding sources - I certainly remember them being (probably incorrectly) branded as a nu-metal band due to their one biggest hit being rather distinctly nu-metal despite being rather uncharacteristic of their normal stuff. I would have expected quite a lot of sources around the time Bring Me To Life came out would probably support their inclusion, but it doesn't appear to be the case. ~ mazca  talk 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are now four sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thank you. However, could you explain why you have twice described good faith edits as vandalism? Rehevkor ✉  21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I regarded repeated removal of sourced material without seeking consensus as disruptive; I apologise for not assuming good faith. I should say however that in an above comment, you claim that there is "no mention" of nu metal in the Allmusic source; this is clearly untrue... it contains the line "The other half of the album does include flashes of the single's PG-rated nu-metal ("Everybody's Fool," "Going Under")", which I would regard as enough for inclusion in this list. The PopMatters source is also fine as well... if a source says the band have nu metal riffs that means they're a nu metal band. Simple really. Either way, we have enough sources to warrant their inclusion even if you want to quibble over those two sources anyway. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised that clicking "Read more" was required. The full review was not linked, just the overview. Rehevkor ✉  14:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also whilst I'm here, there's a Blender source here, which is fairly unambiguous. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps I should've discussed on the talk page sooner. Yeah, the Blender one seems fine. I don't see nu metal riffs as enough for being nu metal because it's only one element. They could well have no other nu metal elements whatsoever. Munci (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Stylus and Spin sources should probably be enough to keep the band in the list now thanks, but I still don't think the other two support the inclusion well enough so those sources should not be included as references. Nu-metal riffage is not the same as being nu metal. Munci (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

this list needs serious editing half
Where is Tura Satana??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.201.44 (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

half of the bands have nothing the do with nu metal and are just thrown here because they came out in late 90's early 2000's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedmyeyes (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on what? Your own opinion? They are all sourced to what I presume to be reliable sources. It's not a half arsed list. Rehevkor ✉  22:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No complaints from me, just suggestions, perhaps Head Phones President, Girugamesh, and D'espairsRay as all 3 are considered to be Nu Metal more than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.156.214 (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Tura Satana and D'espairsRay seem fine and . For the other ones, the problem's mainly finding an RS that describes them as such. I don't think sputnikmusic is good for example . . Munci (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sputnikmusic is okay if it's a staff album review or a review by an emeritus. But the profiles are user-generated wiki-style.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool thanks. I suppose we'd need to look further for that one then. Munci (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

the article's name needs to be changed
this is a list of bands that have been called nu metal by such and such, not a list of bands that actually play nu metal, so the name of the article should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, a "list of bands that have been called x by such and such" is what band lists by genre are.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 10:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed System of a Down
I have removed System of a Down from the list. Although there were two reliable sources attached to it (Allmusic is not reliable for genres), SOAD has none of the traits that are fundamental to nu metal - that being the mixing of hip hop / rap with rock / metal. A few reviews of Toxicity grouped them together with the similar popular acts of the day, Korn and Limp Bizkit, based on the loud and aggressive style of all three. While those two certainly do bring in the rap and hip hop influences, System has absolutely no songs with rapping or hip-hop influences. They never use a turn table or synths. As has been discussed at the talk page of their article, there are at least three times as many sources discounting nu metal which I am happy to provide if anybody disputes the above. Cheers, -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As you can read on the nu metal article, the musical characteristics of the genre do not simply boil down to hip hop/rap influences. If you can indeed, please provide more sources than the ones in this article (I added soruces by the way.) and here: Talk:System_of_a_Down. Munci (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding a bunch of sources to justify a false label doesn't help, and many of the provided sources in that section just label them without any justification for that label (in fact, the sources you added are both foreign-language album reviews, not band bios; in the case of one you are basing the label on the fact that the band has a page in the book - a page that you cannot even read to verify it beyond that. Nu metal is characterized by combining metal influences with rap and hip hop influences primarily (and this is according to Sam Dunn, the ultimate genre resource), and I'd challenge you to find me a band that is routinely classified as nu-metal that combines metal with grunge or some other form of music. The band members discount it,DaronSerge and so do numerous sources, including these two RELIABLE music critics.Boston GlobeChicago Sun-Times -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  12:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't read the review provided, and the second doesn't mention nu-metal at all, so I don't know how it directly says "the band/album is not nu-metal." Also, actual Allmusic reviews, biographical content, or essays (not genre tags) are just as reliable the Boston Globe and Chicago Sun-Times in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. With the book source, just because you do not have the book does not mean it is unreliable as a source.
 * Finally, just because some sources say a band isn't nu-metal doesn't mean that the band shouldn't be listed, if other sources say that they are nu-metal. The controversy over the style of the band is discussed in the SOAD article.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * Whether it is false or not is decided by whether it is there in the sources.
 * One of the two sources I added did include a band bio. It states on the back cover that the book contains nu metal bands from Korn to Deftones, from Limp Bizkit to Incubus and from Slipknot to System of a Down.
 * Aside from System of a Down (and even that is not necessarily ).
 * Artists' own opinion of their genre is notorious for being different (generally less specific) than the genre attributed to them by others. Korn also reject the nu metal label for instance, despite them essentially being the prototype. And the Metal Evolution programme is one about nu metal that includes System of a Down as one of its main focusses.
 * The Boston Globe I would need to subscribe to to access it and the Spin article does not discount nu metal; it simply doesn't mention it. In any case, there is nothing stopping a band from being a part of multiple (sub)genres. Munci (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Artists opinions when seconded by reliable critics do have a bearing, and I have seen that episode of Metal Evolution and even it makes it clear that they were sometimes grouped in even though they were not. Pay for an individual article if you want to see the Boston Globe article, I promise you it is in there (they recently switched to paywall or it has become an old enough article now, but I read it a couple years ago). I'm not sure if the Jim Dero article changed or if I misread it some time ago, but I will succumb that one. Allmusic has routinely been shot down as a reliable source for genres. It is reliable for its bios, but not for its laxidaisical slapping of weird sub-genres to music. The book source can't be read by the person that added it either; they just did a google book search and that result seemed promising, so slap it to the article. For all we know that book may be about nu metal and may cover them but discount that label. We don't know and neither does the person that added it. And again, they lack the musical styling that is characteristic of nu-metal. The only reason they get labelled as it is because of the timing of their breakthrough.
 * As for the controversy visible in the article, that is exactly the point I am trying to make: They have been labelled everything under the sun, but a while ago myself and several editors sat down and compiled every reliable source, tallied them, and weighed the value of each to arrive at the genres presently in the infobox. This article may as well be renamed "List of bands that have been called nu-metal by someone at some point", because it certainly isn't a reflective list of bands that are actually nu-metal. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  13:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "'This article may as well be renamed "List of bands that have been called nu-metal by someone at some point."'" That's what list articles are.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a huge difference between a lone album review and several band bios, and I think that distiction hasn't been made here. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't one lone source that calls them such. See the SOAD article, both sources there are book sources.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to what 3family's saying, I apparently didn't finish part of my post. Aside from System of a Down, Staind, Taproot, Flaw and Five.bolt.main are examples of bands called nu metal despite having few hip-hop elements. But even in SOAD they do have some hip-hop influences (as mentioned in Ventiquattromila dischi), just not much; better seen in Shavo's side project Achozen and their version of Shame on a nigga. Also see here: . Munci (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

well the general consensus is that they are nu metal, they're even mentioned in the nu metal article, and there's a plethora of reliable sources supporting the claim that they're nu metal, so they should remain on the list, keeping in mind other controversial bands like incubus and ratm are on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)