Talk:Nu metal/Archive 5

Reverted Again
You failed to play the wikipedia game properly and now we have to revert. Lets do it RIGHT this time ok??? Carefully pick out unverifiable claims ONLY IF you cant verify them yourselves. 70.119.201.161 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Ownership and WP:RS. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC))
 * You should see WP:Ownership and WP:RS. The only reason this article is a destroyed stub is because of your edits. I'm reverting it again.
 * Actually, no I wont. Lets see what everybody else thinks first. Everybody in discussion, vote whether or not this article should be reverted to its original lengthy/sourced version. 70.119.201.161 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The lengthy version contained a lot of unsourced stuff. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC))
 * The lengthy version had more sourced information than this stub.70.119.201.161 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't. It had citations that didn't back up what the text was saying. Nothing was sourced. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

Sources and slant
User:Sugar Bear considered the sources I cited to be unreliable. An independent editor at WP:RS/N confirmed that they were reliable and that I was using them correctly. Sugar Bear still insists that the sources are unreliable and that my preferred version of the article shows a 'slant' and that better sources exist which say other things. However, these sources have not been produced. Munci (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to do your work for you. Do some research. Secondly, your text clearly was slanted. It says things that clearly do not add up with what has been written on the bands ascribed to this term, and assumes incorrectly that nu metal is a subgenre of heavy metal, when it is clearly not. The fact that you have done no research on this term is highly evident in your instance in reproducing the same text repeatedly. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Well, still noone's answered. It's not "my work". People can do however much work they want to on wikipedia but if they make assertions like "The sources you added aren't particularly great, and certainly not better than other sources describing it as an umbrella term or fusion genre." then you need to actuallly produce sources to back up your assertion. Otherwise, your arguemtn has no merit. I did do research. I got the best possible sort of source and got it confirmed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard even and you still don't accept them properly. Nu metal clearly is citeable as a heavy metal subgenre because there are the sources there to prove it. The fact that that is what RSs happen to agree on is the only reason I add it like that and that's a good reason. Munci (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SB, it's your job to do the work for the claims you're making. If you think other sources say something else, it's your responsibility to provide them.  Sources already exist to support a large body of information for this article, and a number of editors want to use them.  An independent editor confirmed the sources were reliable.  You use the word research a lot, but I fear you're engaged in original research, rather than simply quoting or citing sources.  Provide the sources that support the claim that nu metal is not a subgenre of heavy metal. Torchiest talk/contribs 20:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any reliable sources by writers in the field of music that explicitly discuss heavy metal or nu metal that identify this as a subgenre. "Cross-genre", as the current revision states, is better supported by sources. McIver, Iannini, Christie, etc. identify it as such. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
 * But Pieslak, if none others, is indeed an expert specifically in popular music, which is even the name of the journal he wrote in. Anyway, if it's McIver you're after, try page 13: "While nu metal is still guitar-based, (It's still metal, after all, with all that genre's earth-shaking, parent-displeasing connotations)" I did in fact link to this above but phrased it overly facetiously. In fact, the very first bit of the book is: "Just what the hell is nu metal anyway? It's the modern form of heavy metal,". Searching for |lang_fr|lang_de&id=grWO5XKtbCoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq=mciver+nu+metal&ots=BVn_3TcfR4&sig=piotM8KDHwjgHVT9OkV-E6bz9VQ#v=onepage&q=cross&f=false cross in McIver's book gets me nowhere. So he obviously doesn't use the term "cross-genre" at any rate. And |lang_fr|lang_de&id=grWO5XKtbCoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq=mciver+nu+metal&ots=BVn_3TcfR4&sig=piotM8KDHwjgHVT9OkV-E6bz9VQ#v=onepage&q=fusion&f=false fusion doesn't get me anywhere either, fusion genre being more normal term than cross-genre, the latter, as you can see, being more used for literature than music. And still where's the proof that fusion genre and subgenre are mutually exclusive even if? And which exact sentence in McIver's book are you citing for industrial rock and hardcore punk being the main influences outside of heavy metal? Like I showed above, McIver says "For our purposes, if it's modern metal and it derives a certain proportion of its sound from hip-hop, punk, glam rock or funk, it's in." Also, in the section How did we get to nu metal from old metal, the bolded genres are grunge, rap metal and funk metal. So it seems these are the main influences. Munci (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a subgenre. If you told people that they had to list "heavy metal" instead of "nu metal" in article Infoboxes because of Wikipedia's guidelines, no one would comply, because it's not a subgenre. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC))
 * You can't just flat-out deny what is clearly well-sourced. What guidelines are you referring to? Could you please link to the appropriate page of said guideline? If a band only plays one or two subgenres, then only that one or two gets put in the infobox so Korn for example doesn't have heavy metal in their infobox because they only particular subgenre within metal. This is the consensus for this article and it's been that way since the infobox was first put on the article. Can you please address the rest of the comments? Munci (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Munci. You can't make claims without citing either policy, sources, or both.  Please provide some links. Torchiest talk/contribs 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Template:Infobox_musical_artist. Nu metal is not a subgenre of heavy metal. If it were, "heavy metal" would have to be placed in the Infobox because of the guidelines. I have cited both policy and sources. The only reason anyone would state otherwise is because of laziness and spite. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the link. However, see Template:Infobox_musical_artist for why it seems that either this is not actually well followed or you are misinterpreting it. It seems it has in fact been there since the template was first made in 2006. Perhaps it's outdated? Perhaps it would be worth discussing said sentence and its revision (an improved version would be: "Aim for generality where there are many subgenres that an artist has played (e.g. Heavy metal rather than Alternative metal, Avant-garde metal, Death metal, Funk metal, Metalcore, Progressive Metal)." ) on the talk page? "If it were, "heavy metal" would have to be placed in the Infobox because of the guidelines." - this is not actually a reason why not. This may potentially be a reason someone might object to what is sourced but it is not a reason to actually reject the sourced information. Which sources are you referring to? And can you please address the other points above? Munci (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I addressed the points and sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC))
 * No you didn't. You didn't address an of the points I made at 19:01, 27 May 2010; you just denied what's well-sourced yet again and came with a separate point, which itself I have since replied on. Munci (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only person who's denying what's sourced is you, considering that you have repeatedly reverted to your revision despite the fact that the content you've added is inconsistent and inconsistently sourced, particularly to sources that I've pointed out are not reliable sources for discussions of music genres, and claims that are contradictory to sources, such as that nu metal is a subgenre of heavy metal, which it is clearly not. If you are not going to play by the rules of Wikipedia, don't edit at all. Read up on WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
 * How am I denying what's sourced? What sourced content are you referring to? Which sources, which exact quotes and which page numbers? Just like I did at Reliable Source Noticeboard. If there was any problem with these sources or the way they are used, this would have been brought up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you wanted to point out the question of the sources being "non-musical", this would have been brought up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. You could well do this now still. Without doing this, it's safe to go with what the independent observer said and that is that these are RSs used correctly. In any case, as I have pointed . How is the claim contradictory to sources when you've not provided any source that says explicitly that these are not appropriate descriptions of nu metal? And certainly not multiple sources, among them a scholarly journal entitled "Popular Music"? Even one of the few sources you accept, McIver, supports the idea that nu metal is part of metal, the one thing you have consistently opposed. And: You describe now my changes as "inconsistent" but before you said "The fact that you have done no research on this term is highly evident in your instance in reproducing the same text repeatedly.". It seems that if whether I change to the same version as before or to a third one it doesn't matter, you'll still oppose the changes on the basis of whether I change to the same version as before or to a third one. 12:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your POV-pushing attempts are astounding. You cannot possibly claim that your severely slanted revision is backed up by the reliable sources, or that clearly not reliable sources (scholarly journals) are reliable. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't care about my POV on this. I'm just expanding the article by using reliable sources but then you keep reverting me saying that they're not reliable even though they obviously are reliable, some among the most reliable sources possible, and they were confirmed as such by an independent editor. From WP:RS:
 * "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available."
 * And as you can see from the article Scholarly journal, this is exactly what scholarly journals, such as the one the Pieslak article is part of. Munci (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Bear, please list your sources, which you have still not done. Munci has page numbers and quotes, and the support of editors from WP:RSN. He has claimed that the sources support his statement, and his claim has been backed up by others. What sources do you have for your claims? Torchiest talk/contribs 17:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have cited sources, which neither of you have done. The sources for the current revision are in the article. I'm not pushing a slanted version sourced from sloppily written, poorly researched scholarly journals (NOT reliable sources). Please stop reverting to the slanted revision and pushing POV. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * You have not always cited sources and some of the times you have cited sources, the statements you make are not actually backed up by the sources you provide. Examples in the article now. Of course we have cited sources. I did so in my first edit coming back to this article. I have even had them checked at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and they were supported as being reliable there. That's how you we were talking about scholarly journals because some of the multiple sources cited were scholarly journals. Scholarly journals are most certainly Reliable Sources, one of the best possible. If you really want to question this, then this would be a complete change from what is the policy throughout wikipedia, and many other places, and it just wouldn't be taken on board. Please stop reverting to the short version which contains failed verifications and let's keep the longer version which is entirely sourced to reliable sources. And please assume good faith and not assume our POV is influencing our editing. Munci (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not true. The examples you have cited in your recent edit are not accurate. While Allmusic says "aggro metal", the other citation used, the Static X interview, uses "aggro". And hardcore punk, grunge, and industrial rock are the most frequently cited influences. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC))
 * In which case both 'aggro' and 'aggro metal' should be given as alternate names. In which sources are hardcore punk, grunge, and industrial rock the most frequently cited influences? Page numbers and quotations please, just as I have done before. Munci (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need to provide page numbers and quotations for anything, but especially not this. In Characteristics, each of these genres have two citations. Largely McIver and Allmusic. This book states that "nu metal built on grunge and punk". This review indicates that there are bands performing "industrial aggro". (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Thank you. That first reference says exactly what say it does. It could well be used as a citation in the article. However, quoting that and only that part of the book would be being selective due to the previous sentence - and if it's going to first, it's probably because it's more important - "Such bands built on the early funk metal work of bands such as Faith No More by combining metal with rap and dance music". Also, there are four genres currently listed with multiple citations in the Characteristics section: hip hop as well as three currently in the intro. As for the second source, it mentions the existence of "industrial aggro" and implies that it represented a second wave of industrial metal, one which was not truly metal. It does not however compare the popularity and prescence of industrial aggro to other aggro. Munci (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what point you're trying to make. We have two sources indicating "aggro" as an alternate name for "nu metal". Trying to separate them to have "aggro" and "aggro metal" serves no point other than to pad out the lead with content that isn't expanded upon later. If we separate the sources and add two separate, similar names, what would be the point? If you're going to do that, there's no reason to have alternate names mentioned in the lead in the first place. Generalizing based on the sources gives factual credence to the article. As I mentioned before, there is no need to include every genre mentioned in the characteristics section in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. Hip hop is not a component that is frequent with bands associated with this term. The sources for these bands doesn't imply that. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC))


 * No matter how similar the two names are, it is misrepresenting the sources to use allmusic as support for the 'aggro' alternate name when what allmusic actually says is 'aggro metal'. The point is, if it's names used, we need to quote the source exactly. You don't need to mention every genre; just the most important ones. It seems we agree on that bit. The question is of which genres are most important. Hip hop is cited as an influence by allmusic: "simplified thrash, rap, industrial, hardcore punk, and grunge", McIver (all from pages 10 and 12):"You might have also heard of the terms 'rap metal', 'rap rock', 'rapcore' and so on. These are all becoming rapidly obselete, because the music is about much more than rapping-although that's certainly how it started", "For our purposes, if it's modern metal and it derives a certain proportion of its sound from hip-hop, punk, glam rock or funk, it's in.", "Hip-hop, the most obvious import", Kahn-Harris (page 1):"Such bands built on the early funk metal work of bands such as Faith No More by combining metal with rap and dance music". And that's just sticking to the sources currently used in the article. And then there's still the fact that the article currently cites McIver for the singling out of hardcore punk, grunge and industrial rock when McIver never says such a thing. You have mentioned many times the sources for the bands at List of nu metal bands but you've never referred to any specific sources. Munci (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, look over all the bands associated with this term, and research them. Find what is sourced as common musical elements. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Why? Have looked over and researched all the nu metal bands? I suppose you must have some sort of statistics or list of sources then? Without you having done so yourself, you're basically saying to go do something as if it's a coutnerargument which you have not even checked it yourself. Anyway, that still wouldn't make a difference to what the sources, even ones already cited in the article even, are saying. Munci (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the term Aggro Rock/Metal is usually associated with more rock-oriented bands which are connected to the Nu metal term Drgreen19 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)