Talk:Slipknot (band)/Archive 6

Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat.: Album or Demo...
This is a part of a discussion moved from the archive


 * The band don't consider it in the same vein as Slipknot, Iowa and Vol.3. That is why they called the Subliminal Verses; Vol.3. So it shouldn't be classed as an album, the priamry aims for MFKR were to have a product to hand out to record labels to help them get signed, it was never gonna be liek it they got signed MFKR was goign to be their debut album. That is why they consider Slipknot their debut album, because it is an ALBUM. At the time they may have called MFKR their "album" jsut as a general term but it is most deffinately a Demo. Yes it was made in a studio, that doesn't mean it's a refined product. Whenever they talk about their new album coming out this year they call it their "4th album". At the end of the day the band haven't "disowned" it, they just don't consider it to be in the saim vein as Slipknot, Iowa and Vol.3 so I don't think it should be represented as such on wikipedia. That is why I think "Demo" is a mroe adequate term for it.  Rezter  TALK  13:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It has no importance for Wikipedia what Slipknot considers about themselves. What you say is WP:OR and WP:POV. It is completely unimortant if they call their album "the 3rd" or "the 4th". They ignore the album on their official site what makes them even more unreliable as a source. They "do not agree" with this old album anymore so they ignore it. All your arguments are just original research, but this is an encyclopedia that works with facts, not with "who considered what, what shouldn't be, what was never gonna be, who calls something somehow". There are no questions about it. Wikipedia wants just a list of albums by the band. If the band "disowned" or "ignored" (what they not onlz with vol.3 did), Wikipedia just does not care. Is it their released full lenght studio album? Yes. Wikipedia does not care of it is refined or not, if it is "in the same vein as Slipknot" and such statements. There is not a section called "Studio albums in the same vein as "the new" Slipknot". There is no doubt if you keep Wikipedia rules and do not forget it is an encyclopedia and not a teen magazine.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK well I think that we have found a common ground with the discography now. It has been listed under "Miscellany" and not with the "Studio Albums", however it is called an album. It's hard to state what the album is because it's more than a demo and less than a studio album. So I think that this is a reasonable solution.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  22:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * :) I've seen that. "Miscellany". What a funny alternative to "early albums". I just wonder. What is miscellaneous about a regular album? A beautiful example for Slipknot discography: - . What do you handle? What is miscellaneous about the demo? Nothing. I is a typical regular demo, nothing special, as every demo is. So what is left? Only MFKR again. Just their first album. Why separate it just because it is another kind of music? That is POV. Keep on the rules...-- Lykantrop (Talk) 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is POV, the artist consider it a demo, maybe a few websites or magazines list is an album but at the end of the day the band consider it as a DEMO ALBUM. So who can say that it is a Studio Album? Maybe it is longer and more professional than a traditional "demo". I don't see how you or another editor or "Wikipedia's standards" can outright ignore the fact that it is a demo. How are my arguments Original Research? I am only going on what I have heard from the band in Interviews which are coming from published sources. It's not like I personally asked them.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, at first I would like to see some of these itnerviews please so that I know what you talk about... Show me the preferences that are the source of your statements please-- Lykantrop (Talk) 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. an album / part of the discography. Album, in discography, 50-minute LP...the album - on allmusic.com (!!!the biggest and most reliable source and database!!!), rockdetector (also very big and reliable) - in discography, MFKR as one of FOUR Slipknot albums, Amazon.com -in discography (the only demo here?, Album, as Album on MTV.This are not few websites, this are the biggest and the most reliable websites.


 * Google search:
 * mate.feed.kill.repeat. album (1) 22 400 hits


 * mate.feed.kill.repeat. demo (2) 9 480


 * mate.feed.kill.repeat. Miscellany (3) 89 hits


 * Wikipedia wants to stay WP:VER. And ... if it is not prohibited to "personally ask them". POV is that you are presenting Slipknot's subjective statements, not that you ask them. (see WP:POV) You can't write down to Wikipedia everything what a band says. Motörhead (well known Heavy Metal band) refuses that they are heavy metal. They say they are Hard Rock but not HM... Does it mean they are not Heavy Metal? Of course not. They can say they are hip hop and they will be HM anyway. Slipknot can disown MFKR, but it will stay their album even if they say it is not.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 11:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rezter, there is no set official source / criteria to say what is a demo and what is an album, therefore you have go with what each band considers each of their releases. It is the band's work, they are allowed to consider whatever they want to. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So do I. There is nothing that makes an album seperate from a demo, unless you can find some sourced information about it, and, until then, we have to use the band themselves as the source, therefore, it is their decision whether it is an album or a demo. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster  UTC  09:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The band obviously refers to the Sublimnal Verses as Vol. 3, as in "The third album". Blackngold29 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be resolved so I have put in a request for mediation, please discuss on that page.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is from the band's official FAQ section on their official forums, which the band members themselves often visit. This is the offical word from the band.

Question: "Hi,Just wondering, Why don't Slipknot regard their first album (Mate, Feed, Kill, Repeat) as an actual album? For example, they called Subliminal Verses - Volume 3. And on this website it has the albums Slipknot/IOWA/Subliminal Verses/9.0 Live only. I think they should at least publicize it because then people can know their roots in music. Besides I think MFKR is a good album as well. Thanks,Niniman"

Response: "MFKR is not technically an album. Also....only 1000 copies were ever released, at Clowns wishes. There are many fakes/bootlegs of it, especially on ebay. 99% of them are. A genuine copy recently sold for over $600 !!

As you point out...VOL.3...IS their 3rd album as they see it....they pointed this out themselves..hence the title. If the band wanted MFKR available to people, or if they wanted it to be included in their catalogue, then they would have called Sub.Verse vol4 instead...AND would have re-released MFKR by now. The fact that they HAVEN'T says it all really.

MFKR recording members... Anders Colsefni Joey Jordison Shawn Crahan Josh Brainard Paul Gray Donnie Steele

Personally I dont possess any copy of it, genuine or otherwise....and if it means going against their wishes.....I dont want to own one."

Now this makes it quite clear that band considers MFKR not an album. So I guess the true question that we have to resolve is: Who's opinion is higher when it comes to Slipknot's material? The band's or everyone else's. Blackngold29 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be really glad if you would show me at least one link to the interviews you show there. I need to see some sources you know... I would like to see these interviews before I response...-- Lykantrop (Talk) 14:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I stated Offical Slpknot forums, not that hard to find really. Linkage. Blackngold29 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, thanks. So if I understand it properly the situation looks like this: I (presenting MFKR as an album) gave reliable sources that MFKR is in the public and by the professionals seen as an album. You (presenting MFKR not as an album) gave the official Slipknot's attitude/ or "wishes" as in text. I accept that Slipknot say that. I rummaged Wikipedia's rules a bit so here we go - If the artists opinions are self published then the rule would be that self published material should not be used in an article about itself if is contentious. If you have a reliable second party source it should be given more weight than a self published primary source. That is the rule and I hope you know what it means. But I am just not gonna ignore Slipknot. You can have a look - this is an ideal compromise man. I am NOT fighting against slipknot, so please dont fight against rules dudes!-- Lykantrop (Talk) 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty obvious to me that the mediator states that it should be classified as a demo. I do not understand why this is such a big issue. Blackngold29 (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

heh. This is really in-credible.. Is it REALLY SO HARD TO KEEP ON RULES? Cant you just see that THIS the mediator states is PURE, TYPICAL WP:OR? That is something what just YOU figured out man! It is not a source of information. YOu just compared 2 albums or demos (or what actually you want me to call it). That is just what you thing it should be, not what a verifiable source thinks it should be. Wikipedia is about VERIFIABILITY = WP:VER. You are telling me to discuss on mediation discussion, but there is no argument against my statements. If you revert that edit, than it is vandalism now. My edit there is according to Wikipedia's rules. Your revert NOT. Your revert is probably breaking WP:FAITH or what? If you delete reliable sourced information without a reason and just tell me to discuss than it is WP:Vandalism. I am not obligated to explain it to EVERYBODY who does not understand it. don't tell me to discuss anymore. I discussed and I didn't get any answer that disproves my statemets from you or anyne else so I am not the one who should discuss. All you tell all along the discussions are meanings, no facts. I dont see any questions that are not clarified. AND I actually mentioned your and Slipknot's attitude so what is wrong with you?-- Lykantrop (Talk) 00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, here is a list of "reliable sources" that have been given on both sides of the argument, along with my analysis of them:

Sources given as a Demo:
 * Slipknot's offical site does not list it in the discography
 * Slipknot's offical forums, have specific statements from the band that say it is a demo
 * The independent mediator here at Wikipedia has stated: "The Wikipedia article on Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat., as well as all other articles which mention Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat., should mention that it's a demo rather than a full album."

Sources given as an Album:
 * All websites - simply listing MFKR as part of the discography does not make it an "album", discographies are a list of releases, not lists of albums
 * LastFM - Includes all singles, and unoffical releases such as "Maximum Slipknot" and multiple live releases as part of the "List of Albums"
 * Rocketdetector - Does list it as an album and not a "Promo, Rare", though it also states "Private pressing, 1000 copies", if that isn't rare I don't know what is. This is probably the best case for an album.
 * AMG - Has no "demo catagory", all releases are listed as albums
 * Amazon - I do not believe this is a reliable source. However, if it is let it be known that it also lists "Up to Our Necks" DVD, "Maggots" DVD, and the "Collector's Box" none of which are Slipknot releases.
 * LyricFreak - Not sure if this is reliable. However, if it is let it be known that it also lists a System of a Down album called "Unreleased" which obviously is not an album, but a collection of unreleased material.
 * MTV - Has a long list of "albums" including Slipknot's offical DVDs among other unofficial releases including, but not limited to: "Maggot Corps", "X-Posed: The Interview", "Behind the Mask Unauthorized", and "Up to Our Necks". This "List of Albums" is obviously a list of releases, official or otherwise that have something to do with Slipknot.
 * Google seach count - Not a reliable source. Search numbers mean nothing, as they also serch non-reliable sources

It would appear both sides of the argument lack "good sources". Any more sources that are avalible should be given. I would like to know what the three books, listed as references in this article, have to say on the topic, if anything; I do not own any. Hopefully this will help in resolving the debate. Thank You. Blackngold29 (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You misinterpret some of my sources.

I could give here more and more and more sources. This was a quick overview in the internet. I accept the band's statements so I used a compromise as you can see. Please dont tell that my arguments lack "good sources". My arguments have very very very very very good sources. You probably see only what you want to see. My sources are reliable, yours too, but self-published by the band. So my ones have more weight (WP:SELFPUB). But I am NOT ignoring you. Slipknot's view is there too... I dont see why should you not be contented. You can't reach more than this. A compromise.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LastFM: Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat./ Tracks on this Album/Buy Album from Amazon.com - so NOT as you say it
 * Rocketdetector there is a box with sign "CAREER ALBUMS BY THIS ARTIST": 1.: 9.0 Live, 2.: Vol 3. The sublimal verses, 3.: Iowa, 4.: Slipknot, 5.: Mate.Feed.Kill.Rpeat. - Slipknot albums in chronological order
 * AMG you probably didnt notice this link on AMG, which says "group's self-titled 1999 album, Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat". So NOT as you interpret it
 * LyricFreak - a collection of unreleased material is a compilation album. Why souldnt it be an album?
 * MTV - you probably missed this big sign "Slipknot | Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat | Album"
 * the google search is just for an overview how it looks generally in the world
 * and lots of other.


 * I misinterpret none of your sources:
 * Last FM - This page (and the next five) contains "albums" that were never released by Slipknot at any time, in any form. Therefore how can you use their word as reliable? We might as well create articles for all fan-made mixes and DVDs.
 * Rocketdetector is the best source that you have, however keep in mind that the heading is "Career Albums" and not "Studio albums"
 * AMG - Show me where they list a band's demo album, not inclded on the "albums" list. As I stated above they do not show any difference between demos and studio albums. The "albums" on the side is merely a formality that is inclded on all pages, under which the title is listed (Once again a loose use of the word "album"). They also list the "Collector's Box" on the same catagory of MFKR. Does that make the "Collector's Box" on the same level as Volume 3? No, it isn't even an offical band release.
 * LyricFreak - SOAD never released a compalation album, of any kind, ever; so why is it listed on that page as their other albums? My point is they (like other sources) use the word "album" very loosely.
 * MTV - Once again "album" =/= "Studio album". Also on this page they list (like LastFM) fan mixes that were never released by the band ever. By your definiton Maggot Corps is a Slipknot studio album.
 * I refuse to acknowledge Google search results as a reliable source.
 * You claim you have "many more" where are they? But don't post any that include random collections of their songs like MTV or LastFM.
 * Just becuase one page on your "sources" includes the words MFKR and album somewhere doesn't make it so. Once again "Album" =/= "Studio album", It could also mean "Demo album". By my count you have no sources that says "MFKR is a studio album"Blackngold29 (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And I am sorry if I express me unclearly. If I say "You", "you" or "YOU", sometimes I talk to any one of the opposite side of the discussion. I am not always talking just to only one of you...a bit confusing maybe, I know-- Lykantrop (Talk) 10:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all the people arguing for it to be declared a "demo" are actually arguing for the bands opinion. Even the guy who was mediating agrees that its clear that band respect it as a demo. I don't understand how that can be outright ruled out. It isn't contentious at all, there isn't that much of a mess revolving around it. Just because another website not affiliated with the band declares it an album, doesn't mean it is. OK I have all of those three books... and more so here you go I will tell you what they say about it, since all you want are third party sources.


 * "The newly re-christened sextet saw out 1995 by heading into Des Moines' SR Audio studio to work on a demo."
 * "No further pressings of MFKR were made an the album, which the band regard as strictly a demo, has become a sought-after rarity."
 * "No further pressings of MFKR were made an the album, which the band regard as strictly a demo, has become a sought-after rarity."


 * "Slipknot's mission was to record a demo-album - which would eventually be title Mate Feed Kill Repeat."
 * "Shawn Craha admits that he doesn't own one. 'At the time, that first album was the best thing ever,' he told hiponline.com. 'It's a sick, demented, magical album. But we don't support it anymore. It really didn't have any structure. We'd try anything as a band, as long as we felt it belonged to Slipknot.'"
 * "Shawn Craha admits that he doesn't own one. 'At the time, that first album was the best thing ever,' he told hiponline.com. 'It's a sick, demented, magical album. But we don't support it anymore. It really didn't have any structure. We'd try anything as a band, as long as we felt it belonged to Slipknot.'"


 * "When you have six motivated muscicians in a band, things move rapidly, and at the very end of the year Shawn, Joey and Josh visited a local recording studio, SR Audio, located in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale, to record an album."
 * "When you have six motivated muscicians in a band, things move rapidly, and at the very end of the year Shawn, Joey and Josh visited a local recording studio, SR Audio, located in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale, to record an album."


 * "By the end of 1995, Slipknot were starting to create a real buzz in town, so they decided it was about time they entered the studio to get some of their new work down on tape. Although they loved playing live, the band were keen to get a record deal and wanted to have a demo to give to prospective labels."
 * "In early 1996, the band started to collect all their recorded work together with a view to putting out an album."
 * "In early 1996, the band started to collect all their recorded work together with a view to putting out an album."

All but "Slipknot: Unmasked" establish it a "demo" or a "demo-album" and then usually refer to it easily as an album. I would consider books dedicated to the band more reliable sources than some totally urnelated websites which list a "Discography".  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  11:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally you show some non-selfpublished cources. That is what I wanna see, so:

That are good sources, but be objective now... look at the last paragraph you wrote...reality is not the way you say
 * Porter, Dick (2003) - "No further pressings of MFKR were made an the album, which the band regard as strictly a demo," = Dick considers MFKR as an album, but warns that Slipknot say it is a demo.
 * Arnopp, Jason (2001) says "demo-album", Shawn Craha says "first album" (...) "a sick, demented, magical album. But we don't support it anymore(!!!)" = Jason calls MFKR a demo-album, Shawn Craha says it is an album, but we don't support it anymore. = They know it is an album, but they just don't support it anymore.
 * McIver, Joel (2001) - calls it expressly an album
 * Crampton, Mark (2001) says "By the end of 1995 (...) they wanted to have a demo", "In early 1996 (...) a view to putting out an album"

Porter, Dick says is is an album, but Slipknot calls it demo, Arnopp, Jason says demo-album (what means it is a studio album) and even Shawn Craha says it is an album but they dont use that ANYMORE (=the did but dont do anymore). McIver, Joel - album. Crampton, Mark says the wanted to have a demo, but recorded an album. Why do you twist their words as you want them to be? 3 of them say it is an "album", that Slipknot call "demo" and one says it is a demo-album, but at the same time Slipknot member says it is an album, but they don't support it anymore. So I have 4 reliable sources more. And one of them is even by a band member. Thanks.

Theese books have the same reliabilitiy as my sources. Not more (you said you think they would). And how can you call Allmusic Guide, LastFM, MTV and RockDetecor unrelated??? They are completely reliable!!! So according to WP:SELFPUB the independent objective reliable sources are prefered. The band's opinion is secondary, because they are subjective. If you can even see that they disown it as Shawn Craha said in that book. You can disown an album but you can't change history, it was still released, therefore it was the first album (and Shawn said it is an album). Wikipedia wants to contain facts, not opinions. Regardless I am making the article contain Slipknot's opinion, so what else do you want?-- Lykantrop (Talk) 13:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all a matter of terminology. The books do use the terminology "album" yes... but they still say it's a demo. I know Shawn Crahan did call it an "album" too... but that doesn't mean it's a STUDIO ALBUM. YOU are twisting their words, not me. All apart from "Slipknot: Unmasked" clearly state that it is a demo album... yes they may also call it an "album" for short... that doesn't mean it's a "studio album". Not one of those books use the terminology "studio album" which is what you are suggesting it is. See demo album, "A demo album is an album recorded for demonstration, often in order to obtain a record deal, rather than release." which is EXACTLY what the "album" was made for. There was only ever 1000 original pressings of the album, some were given to fans, I know that much. But primarily it was used to demonstrate the band and their music to record labels, management, radio stations and the like in order for the band to get signed to a record deal.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. This is already starting to be somewhere else than this discussion ought to be. You actually agree that it is an album, but not a studio album, so the problem is solved, because it has been recorded in studio, so what else should it be than a studio album? The term "album" refers to, "live album", "compilation album" or "studio album". MFKR was recorded in studio and they call it album. Reliable sources call it "album". Slipknot called it "album" and call it "demo" now. I just dont know why cant you see that, but all 4 of the book references you wrote there call it "album" in the end, also Cahan calls it "album" at first and after that he just does not say it is a demo. He just says they do not support it anymore. That is still the same problem. I understand that you want there to be what Slipknot would put there, but that is not encyclopedic. That is subjective. They disowned it and that can be said in the article as an inormation of band's today attitudes.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, it's all about terminology. He did call it an "album", for short yes... anybody can call 9.0 Live an "album", that doesn't make it a "studio album". A studio album is one that is produced with the intent of releasing it to the public, not just an album that was produced in a studio. I don't think 1000 copies is open to the public. This album is a Demo album. OK here are some other examples of "demo albums" on wikipedia.


 * Mayhem's Pure Fucking Armageddon (listed in "demos" in discography)
 * Metallica's ''No Life 'Til Leather (listed in Metallica demos)


 * First of all your argument of verification is void because I have sources that say it IS a "demo album".
 * Your argument that it is a "studio album" because it was recorded in a studio is void because, that is just irrelevant.

The term "album" does not declare that it is a "studio album".  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  16:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1.No Life 'Til Leather is a shortened version of Kill 'em All. A typical demo. Most of MFKR songs appeared only on MFKR. Pure Fucking Armageddon songs were all rerecorded. So that examples mean actually nothing.
 * 2.Instead of telling "I have sources", just show them.
 * 3.And please dont say such a statements as "an album recored in studio is not a studio album"...stay serious please. There is no place for joking.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your statement "Most of MFKR songs appeared only on MFKR" is completely false.


 * 1) "Slipknot" has evolved tremendously in to "(sic)" which appears on Slipknot.
 * 2) "Gently" has also evolved tremendously with completely different tempo, structure and riffs. Along with altered lyrics. It appears on Iowa
 * 3) "Do Nothing / Bitchslap"  hasn't appeared in any other form.
 * 4) "Only One" has also completely changed! With different lyrics, structure, tempo. It appears on Slipknot
 * 5) "Tattered & Torn" has since been altered and appears on Slipknot.
 * 6) "Confessions" hasn't appeared in any other form.
 * 7) "Some Feel" hasn't appeared in any other form.
 * 8) "Killers Are Quiet" has completely changed and evolved into "Iowa" which appears on Iowa

None of the tracks from MFKR are still in the bands repertoire as they were on that album. MFKR contained Anders Colsefini on vocals, when Corey Taylor joined, most of their songs were adapted with completely new lyrics. So according to you MFKR is "A typical demo" because tracks have since changed.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So we seem to agree that the terminology is that it is technically a "demo-album" and not a "studio album", due to the fact that the word "album" is used loosely. So why must it be listed under the Studio Albums catagory on the discography page? How about a Demo Album catagory? Also, simply because it was recorded in a "studio" doesn't make it a "studio album", if you have the money who wouldn't record their demo in a studio? Likewise, you could record an "album" at your house and release it: What is that? Not recorded in a studio, not a demo, it would be an album.

I think it all comes down to terminology as I stated earlier, the word "album" is used loosely by the band and by everyone else. I would also like to ask everyone, to please not change the discography page until we get this agreed upon, reporting each other for vandalism seems over the line. Blackngold29 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is just the terminology now. The band does not really say what MFKR is. Their formulations are pretty variable. They don't define it exactly because they don't "support it anymore". On the other hand we have reliable sources about MFKR as a normal regular album. What do you suggest? Try to come up with something constructive and dont forget the arguments of the other side. I am not gonna accept to just put it under a "demo" label as the Roadrunner demo. I made a compromise in a way, so what do you think we should do?-- Lykantrop (Talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Would the "Demo Album" section be plausible? It sounds better than "Early Albums", but I agree it shouldn't be listed in the same catagory as the 1995 Roadrunner Demo. The note that it is not considered an album by the band could be left there. And a paragraph should be added to the MFKR page about the debate, as the mediator stated. I think that if somebody really wants to know about MFKR they will go to the main article. I think the band still "supports" the album, as they have not "disowned" it, however it was recorded before the band aquired members of the current line-up. Blackngold29 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem of "Demo Album" section is, that there would be only 1 album, what looks just stupid. What about to delete the tag "studio albums", leave just the main title "albums", leave the note under MFKR and write down to the MFKR article a very nice summary of what's up with MFKR? Just "albums" section is very neutral, it says it is neither a studio album nor demo album. That would be one way. That is what I would make. But the other way would be to change the "studio albums" to "Studio and demo albums"...That is actually pretty good idea I think. Just "Studio and demo albums"...What you say about "Studio and demo albums" and the rest as it is+the thing in MFKR article???????-- Lykantrop (Talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with "Miscellany".. yes it will be group with the Roadrunner Demo, but it's still not the "DEMOS" section. I don't think MFKR should be listed with the others simply because it is not of teh same standard and the band don't see it that way either.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OOh man please stay out of this with such a non-constructive ideas. Am I gonna repeat to you 1000 times all the wikipedia rules or what? You are making the same mistakes again and again. I know that "you don't think MFKR should be...". That is WP:POV understand? WP:POV. A statement + sources = good edit. Your opinion - sources = POV. And what "band don't see" is secondary. Understand SE-CON-DA-RY. Get it??? We are solving the problem now with sourced information. And we are almost ready with it. PLEASE read WP:5 several times.


 * OK I think we have established it is a "Demo Album" ok... now "Miscellany" is a general term... it doesn't state that it's a demo or anything it's jsut miscellaneous, like uncategorised. That is the fairest solution I think there is. It's in-between making a section called "demo Albums" and putting it in with the "Studio Albums". That is not POV at all.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "miscellaneous, uncategorised" - unencyclopedic. Inaccurate. There is nothing miscellaneous obout it. That is unsustainable. And it has already been rejected.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"The problem of "Demo Album" section is, that there would be only 1 album, what looks just stupid." My respone: There is only one album under the Demo heading (1995 Roadrunner Demo) and it does not looks stupid, and has not been contested.

I will agree to the "Miscellany" idea, providing the 1995 Demo is left under the "Demos" catagory as it currently is, due to the fact it is clearly and without contest, a demo. Also I believe the note stating the band's view of the album should remain. Blackngold29 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To Lykantrop:
 * See Red Hot Chili Peppers discography it is a featured discography and it has a "Miscellania" section which includes Compilation and EPs. Slipknot discography got featured list status when it was under the "Miscellany" format before. Nobody had any objections to it. At the end of the day, MFKR does not belong in the same category as the other three. The tracks are no longer performed by the band, 5/8 of the tracks have since evolved and appeared on other albums, there was only 1000 made and it's not available anymore. So I completely disagree with it being in the same section. If you can come up with another solution I'm open to it.

To Blackngold29:
 * That is a bad idea I think having two sections with one album in each liek "Miscellany" and "Demos". MFKR is a demo, but it is a Demo Album. They should both go into the same section, I propose under "Miscellany".  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. "Miscellany" shall be added and list MFKR and the 1995 Roadrunner Demo. The note stating Slipknot's view on it shall remain in place. A section should be added to MFKR stating the band's view on it. Agreed? Blackngold29 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a perfect solution I think. As long as Lykantrop agrees.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Man. This discussion is exactly there, where it was at the beginning. I am here to keep MFKR in the secton with the other albums, you are here to make the opposite. I have lots of reliable sources, you have band's attitude (that I dont ignore), but you can't break WP:SELFPUB. You must understand 1 thing, really only 1 single thing: What Slipknot say is not automatically truth = you can not write it to an encyclopedia as a fact. If you won't change your mind, I have nothing to tell you anymore. I made several concessions, you obviously don't want to make any concession. Please don't want me to give you more Wikipedia-rules-lessons. Lykantrop (Talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, this cannot go on forever, at this pace it will. As I see it we must pick one of the following:


 * "Demos and Studio Albums" - Contains all five (MFKR, 1995, Slip, Iow, Vol3)
 * "Miscellany" - Contains 1995 and MFKR
 * "Albums" - Contains MFKR, Slip, Iow, Vol3


 * Are any of these agreeable? If not please make a suggestion. Blackngold29 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. "Albums" is agreeable. It agrees with Wikipedia's rules (= what professionals say and what the band was saing until they "stopped to support" it. What the band is saying now is 1. as a note directly over there, 2. feel free to use whole MFKR article, make citations from their web and interviews etc. -- Lykantrop (Talk) 09:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you actually ignoring my comments now? It is not AN ALBUM!!! It is a demo!! I am not gonna sit back and let it be put in the same category as the other three. It does not belong there. Why are you fighting this... I don't see 1 good reason why it should be there. Yo uare in the wrong and you are jsut being stubborn. I see how you haven't commented on the fact that they have since changed the majority of their tracks and scrapped the others, why? Dude, you are seriously in the wrong and we have to resolve this.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  10:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:POV. You are the only one who sees it as demo. I am not obligated to answer your POVs and ORs endlessly. You have no sources. Everything is against you. Even Shawn Crahan from Slipknot says it is an album that is not supported by Slipknot anymore. Critics and professionals say it is an album. Yes I am stubbornly defending Wikipedia's rules with WP:AGF. I am not, and nobody is obligated to tell you why are your POV and OR ideas, with which you come up again and again, wrong. Lykantrop (Talk) 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not POV or OR at all. God damn it do I have to repeat myself all the time, you are not processing what I am telling you.


 * MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS!!!!!
 * 3 out of the 4 books I have sourced above declared it a "demo album" and later referred to it as an "album", using the terminology "album" does not make it a "studio album".
 * 5 out of the 8 tracks on the "album" have since been reconstructed and appeared in different forms on future albums. So according to you this makes the album a "typical demo".
 * The remaining 3 tracks have never appeared in any form (including live performances) since the release of Slipknot (album).
 * The primary means for the production of the "album" was to promote the band to help them get a record deal. (see Demo album)


 * It does not belong in the same category as the other 3 albums, now please identify where in those four points there it POV or OR.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  16:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok man, ok. This is the last time, I'am telling you really the LAST TIME I am doing it again. I am identifying what you say wrong, and I am again doing the work, you should do with reading and understanding WP:POV, WP:OR:
 * Porter, Dick's (2003) book says once "demo". (I am glad if you won't come up with this "an album recorded in studio is not a studio album" again. Furthermore I dont need everywhere to be "studio album" word for word. "Album" is usually used for "studio album". It actually an abbreviation. Nobody says "studio album" all the time.) After that he CLEARLY alleges that he calls it "album", cause it actually is, but the band not. The band calls it "demo". - "No further pressings of MFKR were made an the album, which the band regard as strictly a demo, has become a sought-after rarity.". That is very unambiguous. He (professional) says album, ON THE OTHER SIDE the band calls it strictly "demo". Very nice source for the difference between professionals statements and Slipknot's later attitude.
 * Arnopp, Jason (2001) book. Cahan says openly it was an album originaly, but the don't suport it anymore. Arnopp, Jason says demo-album cause he wants to include the Slipknot post-MFKR attitude. Excellent source where even a band member expains it is an album, but they disowned it.
 * McIver, Joel (2001) book- short undoubtly album made in studio (...)
 * Crampton, Mark (2001) book - 1. citation: wanted to have at least a demo, 2. citation: Recored an album.
 * -all sources usable for me, mostly excellent ones. In one of them a band member explains the whole disagreement nicely.
 * Your second statement is typical WP:OR = You figured out some information on your own. That is ok, but if you say that this means MFKR is a demo, than it is OR.
 * The third statement is just a statement that I dont understand what is it for.
 * The fourth: That is maybe truth, but if you say that it means that MFKR it is a demo, it is WP:OR - no sources.
 * I know you see it as a demo. I know you want to have this discography as it slipknot web has. But They recorded an album, what they said and what proffesionals said. They (and you) dont want to have it as their album anymore, but you cant change what happened. You may answer me anything now, but I dont see you can get over all the sources such as Allmusic, MTV and Cahans opened statement. You are presenting today's (but not he original) and yours attitude. That is POV. That is not an information for an encyclopedia. Sorry.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are twisting their words, three of them declare it to be a "demo album" and then use the term "album" for short... that does not make it a "Studio album". Just because it was recorded in a studio does not automatically rule out it to be a demo, what if I was in a band and I rented out a studio to record a demo? It would be a demo. That is exactly what they did, they only produced 1000 for a reason, because they never wanted it to be a public release.
 * Well I may have gone out and found it myself but it doesn't make it untrue, and it is published, they are published on the CD. Isn't the CD itself a reliable source?
 * The third statement states that the band no longer perform them songs any more. So since the release of the "album" they have evolved all their tracks or subsequently decided to drop them.
 * That is not Original research at all, see the Mark Crompton source; "Although they loved playing live, the band were keen to get a record deal and wanted to have a demo to give to prospective labels." and if you really needed it I could go back through those books and refer to everywhere it says that the band were making this "album" to promote their music and get a record deal.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  12:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be glad if you wouldn't put your contributions in the middle of my ones. And you are interpreting it as you would like it to be. If somebody says "album", who understands a "demo"? Why would he say "album" if he would mean "demo"? Do you think you can come up with a source where is "album" and say: ""Yeah, he said "album" but he actually ment a "demo", bit confusig I know, but trust me, he supposed a demo..""?? Or you think you can come up with: ""A band member said: "'It's a sick, demented, magical album. But we don't support it anymore." but he used the term "album" incidentally, it means demo!""??? Other thing, if you find yourself something, it maight be truth, but it is still OR. How should anybody know that it is really truth? Cause you explain it to him? That is still OR. You are NOT supposed to find yourself ANYTHING. EVERYTHING must have sources, everything must be an objective statement of a professional without exceptions. It doesnt matter if it is logical for you or for anybody if reliable sourced statement is against it. Yes the band does not play the songs anymore, cause they dont support them anymore. They took some ideas of the songs and made new songs from them (cause they dont support them anymore, but like some ideas), but telling that the old "Gently" is a demo of the new "Gently" is typical OR. Even you listen to them - most of people would not recognize that they have something to do together. They made the new versions cause they still liked some of the ideas, but did not support the album. The most "avant-garde" songs like "Do Nothing / Bitchslap" were just too much to remake them. If MFKR would be a normal common demo, why would they say the dont support it anymore? Why wouldnt they support it, if it would be a normal demo? They wanted to get label, but who says that it means that the recorded an demo? They could record an album anyway - OR. They rereleased MFKR after they got a label... Lykantrop (Talk) 13:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, that isn't "inbetween" your comments at all, it was a response to that one comment you left. The books refer to the album as a "DEMO ALBUM", see "demo....... album" they later refer to it shorter as an "album". This not a "demo" or a "studio album"... it is a "demo album". Like I said before you can call 9.0 Live an "album", that doesn't make it a "studio album"... it is a "live album". You interpret the term "album" as "studio album" when it isn't.
 * I have sources for the tracks, the CDs. They are probably the best source you could get. It is not OR research, anybody coudl get the CDs and compare them, they are the sources. I don't need a source to tell me that "Gently on MFKR is now Gently on Iowa".
 * "It doesnt matter if it is logical for you or for anybody if reliable sourced statement is against it." So you have a reliable source that says none of the tracks from MFKR have appeared in later albums?
 * "telling that the old "Gently" is a demo of the new "Gently" is typical OR. Even you listen to them - most of people would not recognize that they have something to do together" Trust me if you listened to both of them you would see CLEARLY that they are the same song. Once again it is not OR research, I have the CDs those are source enough.
 * They say they "don't support it anymore" because it's a demo, why would anybody support a demo? It's excactly that, a demo. They don't support in as much as they don't support it on the terms that they don't want to release it to the public. They only produced 1000, isn't that enough to tell you that they never wanted it to be considered a "studio album"?  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh wow! I just realised that you said "They rereleased MFKR after they got a label." That's quite impressive. That is utter nonsense. In 1998 they got signed to Roadrunner Records and have since released EVERY OFFICIAL release through them. MFKR was originally self-produced with 1000 copies. The majority of them were sent out to record labels and management companys. The remainder were given to -ismist Recordings who distibuted them in 1997. Those are the only ones released officially by the band. Since that time there has been many bootlegs made and sold off. Particularily this one which was released under "Pale One Music" which the band had nothing to do with.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What about this -ismist Recordings re-release? If the second sentence in MFKR article is lying, I am sorry. I thought you've already checked those things about Slipknot in wikipedia. I didnt say "none of the MFKR songs did not appear in the other albums". The songs with the same name are so different in their song structures and have so many new things that are not in the "old versions", and so many things in the old ones are not in the "new ones" that the new ones can hardly be called demos of the old ones. And it would be OR anyway. It is not even a mention on the MFKR that it is a demo!! You said "Anybody could get the CDs and compare them"????? What????? Are you telling me "if anybody wants sources, find some for yourself!!!" ????? Do you want to tell to the people if they want sources, they should buy MFKR??? Wow. Your arguments are staggering. If an administrator would see that, I better dont want to see his reaction... Another thing: "This not a "demo" or a "studio album"... it is a "demo album"" - this statement is very nice. The term "demo" is an abbreviation of "demo album". A "Demo" is one song on this "demo album". People use "Demo" also for the demo "album". But NOBODY uses "album" for anything else than a studio album.  There are also live albums and demo albums, but for these are used the terms "live album" and "demo". You interpret "album" as "demo album". Cahan would have said demo if he ment a demo. "Nobody says album when he means demo" and it is funny if you say not, and if you do, dont tell me I am STUBBORN. Another thing: Saying "I have the CD and I've heard it" is not a source. Its OR and another good joke for an administrator. You said "They say they "don't support it anymore" because it's a demo" - this is a LIE. Cahan said very different reasons -- Lykantrop (Talk) 08:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If youread my previous comment I said: "MFKR was originally self-produced with 1000 copies. The majority of them were sent out to record labels and management companys. The remainder were given to -ismist Recordings who distibuted them in 1997." it wasn't a Re-Release... it was just a distribution of the remainder of the 1000. They were never signed to a record deal with -ismist Recordings. Also... in defense of your statements:
 * You keep daying it's OR that I said their songs were demos which appeared on later albums, I then told you mroe than ocne that the CDs themselves are the sources. OK, let's give a little internet search should we. OK here is one source to back up these claims.
 * "07. Gently (5.00):

An old 'KNOT tune from the Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. days, fully resurrected, 2001 style. One of the mellower tracks the band have done to date, this kicks off with a slow and spooky intro, before eventually speeding up into yet another savage metal riff. SAMPLE LYRIC: We were too being scared to pick one, sorry."
 * You interpret me sourcing the CDs as me saying "if anybody wants sources, find some for yourself", is completely idiotic. I told you that the sources are the CDs. It's like me sourcing a book or magazine. It's not my fault if you don't have the source to go and look for it, I have the sources and I am making the statements. They don't need to be widely open, free websites to be sorucable you know. A CD can be used as a source.
 * You are getting locked up in them using the term "album"... AGAIN I AM USING THIS EXAMPLE; if I said "have you heard the album 9.0 Live?" are you going to take my use of the term "album" as a "studio album"? No because it is clearly a live album. Now because they use the term "album" does not make it a "studio album". Like I keep repeatign to you, which you keep ignoring; the books declare it to be a "DEMO ALBUM" and then later use the term "album", do they need to continually spell it out in ever term and say "demo album"? NO. It's liek me saying "MFKR is a demo album.... have you heard that album?" Me using the terminolgy "album" does nto declare it to be a studio album.
 * You said "Crahan would have said demo if he ment a demo". I completely disagree. Him sayign "album" is an ambiguous term, liek I keep bringing up if he called 9.0 live an "album" you wouldn't put "studio album" on the page. You constintly interpret the term "album" as "studio album", WHY!!? Can "album" not mean "demo album"? Of course it can, and it does with this case! The books clearly state it is a demo album.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Even in 1996 the band considered it a demo. You know what, you're really pissing me off. You are sayign that these "professionals" say its a studio album... when they don't. They don't say Vol.3 The Subliminal Verses is their fourth album... show me one reliable source that says that. Every source for Slipknot's upcoming album say it's their fourth. I am sick of arguing with you you're just stubborn. I think we should either have a vote or have this decided by an administrator.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'am telling it again: The band considers it a demo now, but did not before. Cahan said that as you can see. There are multiple sources of this difference what IS the band saying and what the band SAID before. Proffesionals just carry on with what the band was saying before. Proffesionals just dont share how slipknot changed their attitude to MFKR, proffesionals just did not stop "supporting it", what Slipknot did. All sources where Slipknot or anybody else says it is a demo are later than 1999 (Slipknot album release). Before 99 nobody says THEY RELEASE A DEMO. Later the band says it is a demo, but MFKR does not metamorphose from an album to a demo just because Slipknot want. You are just defending their attitude. I would welcome every administrator you call. But voting is impossible. Slipknot has too many whole hog fans, that would make anything what Slipknot says - that would be subjective vote.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 09:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Lykantrop, you continuously say you have "muliple sources" where the band say it was an album. Please present these, you made a comment that started this whole "discussion" over a month ago, in that time you have not presented ONE SOURCE that says "Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat is the first "studio album" from the band Slipknot" or the like. You continuously deny that the term "demo album" (which could also be called an "album" for short) exists. Well, it does and if you keep denying it you are just being stubborn. There are more reliable sources at this very moment that have been presented that MFKR is a "Demo album" or a "demo" and not a "Studio album", do you consider an "album" and a "Studio album" as the same thing? Or a "Demo album", an "album" and "Studio album" all as different things? And don't list the books, at best with you twisting their words they say demo first and "album" later, therefore cancelling themselves out, at best. It seems quite obvious that the band has considered it a demo all along. What do you believe a demo is? Something, and only something, a band records in one of the member's basements? And what do you mean Slipknot stopped "supporting" MFKR? They don't deny that it exists, they only deny that it is of the caliber of the other releases. Just because Slipknot didn't take the route of most bands doesn't mean they can be dismissed as being below "professionals", who think about Slipknot once every two or three years when they have to review their latest album. Thank You! Blackngold29 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it as a demo as well, however, on the grounds that this discussion will last for the next ten years, unless one side gives up, I am willing to put it under the broad catagory of Albums (as in Demo albums and Studio albums). We agree it comes down to terminology, nothing prevents a demo from being recorded in a studio. I'm not saying it should be a free-for-all, but not going by the "rules" in this one case due to the complications (and quite massive discussion) that we have come accross seems reasonable, I'm sure the rule were written in good faith, however, you cannot plan for every situation. Should another mediator be brought in, as in a second mediator opinion? That's a close as we can get, to my current knowledge, to the guy who wrote the rules and his motives behind them. Just because Slipknot did not include the word "demo" in the title does not make it a studio album. By the way, not that it really matters but, where exactly was it recorded? Blackngold29 (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that this is exactly where we were at before this discussion but you are the only one person who doesn't agree. We have came to a conclusion that MFKR is a Demo album, did we not? You said yourself that No Life 'Til Leather is a "typical demo" because the tracks have appeared later on Kill 'em All, you also said "Most of MFKR songs appeared only on MFKR.". I would have agreed to put MFKR in with the other albums if this was true. 5 out of the 8 tracks that are on MFKR have since evolved in to different tracks and appeared on Slipknot (album) and Iowa, and the other 3 have since been dropped. They have never performed the other 3 live since they released Slipknot. Now how can you say it should be lsited with the other albums? It clearly shouldn't. I agree that it shouldn't be declared a demo in the same vein as the Roadrunner demo, that is why "Miscellany is a more apt title. Here is my suggestion, at my sandbox. (Click here)  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  00:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we have to remember that the main purpose of the discography page is to give a general overview of Slipknot's releases. If someone really wants to know about MFKR they will go to its main article. The note (or a footnote) should be there on the discography page, but MFKR does not belong under the "Studio Albums" heading, it is possible that a demo could be recorded in a studio. I will agree on the proposal on Rezter's sandbox, but am also open to other suggestions. Blackngold29 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say to bring in an administrator or another mediator, but I can't say that if he rules that it is an album I would blame Rezter for rejecting that, as has been done with the first administrator's decision. I have to leave soon, but I will return in a few hours and try to re-evaluate the sources that have been presented on both sides. Again, As we stated it all comes down to terminology (the word "album" is used very loosely and in my mind could refer to a "demo album" which = demo OR a "studio album" which = Studio album. Calling is an "album" =/= "Studio album" automatically) so if a book calls it a "demo" the first time and then an "album" after that I would consider that source as calling it a demo and only a demo. Where was MFKR recorded? It does not matter to me as a demo could be recorded in a studio. Blackngold29 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolution
Presented in two versions...

The tl;dr version: Lykantrop has had enough time to present his evidence and his sources that state that MFKR is an album. He's failed to do so. Because of this and a variety of other reasons, I hold that MFKR is to be regarded as a demo.

The long version: Wikipedia is not about taking sides - it's about providing encyclopedic content under a free license. But if I absolutely had to take a side, it would be Rezter's - simply because unlike Lykantrop, whose arguments consist of nothing but personal opinion and failed promises to present sources, Rezter is adamant and clear in his points and he's presented very compelling evidence. Basically, Lykantrop, you are pretty much the only one that still insists Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. is a studio album. I respect your right to a free voice, and you're very welcome to post your opinion, but you've basically crossed the line where opinion-posting becomes filibustering. Everyone else has made up their mind on one side of the issue, and you're the only one holding up the other side despite relevant and compelling evidence to the contrary. You say that you have multiple sources, why don't you present them?

Rezter successfully presented the fact that most of the tracks of Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. were used for Slipknot, which more often than not constitutes a demo album. I successfully presented that MFKR shares many similarities with the Tool demo 72826, and also that the band released another demo almost directly after MFKR... perfectly normal for a band to release two demos in succession, but out-of-the-ordinary to release a studio album, a demo, and then another studio album. But you have presented nothing, you said you had sources, but you failed to display them.

This has gone on long enough, and it's clear to almost everyone here that MFKR is a demo. That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. --Kagetsu Tohya (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK finally, We have an outsiders opinion. Just so you know, I requested his opinion and I was open to supporting whatever he chose. Thank god this is resolved.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the resolution. My opinion aside it is clear that the sources presented are in favor of demo. Though I would like to point out that the reason why I think that Lykantrop was confused was that: many sources do refer to MFKR as an album, however this could refer to: "Demo album", "Studio album", "Live album", or "Compalation album". The word "album" in itself is no more than a catagory. Hopefully we can get back to the important work of improving articles instead of arguing over them. Thank You. Blackngold29 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think I accept an opinion of a 5 days old account with 6 contributions that comes and writes down a lame conclusion presented as a resolution? Do you think I am gonna leave a POV of several Slipknot fans in an ancyclopedia? You have no rights to delete information with reliable sources. Lykantrop (Talk) 13:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so the new rule is the more edits you have, the more reliable you are? Missed that one in the rulebook. If you are going to say that then why should we accept your opinion over Rezter's? I hate to bring stuff like this up, but he has obviously been interested in Slipknot longer, and contributed more to improving their articles than you. Source One, Source Two. What do you think MFKR is? Tell us plain and simple. Is it a "Studio album"? Fine show us a source where somebody says "Studio album". Or do you contest that the terms "Demo album", "Studio album", "Live album", or "Compalation album"s even exist, I would think not since you've used half of them in your arguments. It isn't technically a reliable source, but check out album, it states: "a collection of related audio or music tracks distributed to the public." This is an "album" not necisarily a "Studio album", it seems that you refuse to believe a band could release a demo album to the public. Why? Says who? Blackngold29 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize, Lykantrop, I had no idea that my number of contributions and my account age actually adversely affected what I had to say. If you want more sources that prove our point, check out my "Attempt at Mediation" on the same talk page. --Kagetsu Tohya (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok am very sorry if you feel attacked, but why are you saying that I have no sources? Yeah I stopped to support this discussion, cause it seems senceless to me. I gave wery well sources direct to the article (and some of them already noticed in this discussion). So if you say I gave not sources, only what I can tell you is, that you dont say the truth. Have a look to the Slipknot discography. If it is not next to MFKR (somebody maybe deleted it), have a look to the history and watch the last version by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lykantrop (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK man, my next choice is to go for the WP:3O. I really don't want to do this again and again man but I believe 100% that I am right. Do you really want to go through all this shit dude? If you believe strong enough that you are right then we'll do it but I really don't feel we need to hassle so many people.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  13:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Lykantrop, you keep denying that the term "demo album" exists. [Yet, it does.] I also didn't mean to say you had no sources pertaining to the entire discussion, I just meant that you didn't present any sources other than fan-produced books where it explicitly said that MFKR was a studio album. If you can present these, I'll look them over and come to a fair decision. --Kagetsu Tohya (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to get drawn into what is obviously a long-running and heated discussion. However, is it possible that the problem is actually with the definitions of the terms 'demo album' and 'studio album' in the first place, and hence the two main protagonists will never agree. So, the Wikipedia page for Studio album states: "A studio album is a collection of studio-recorded tracks by a recording artist." This is unsourced but if that were the definition we were using, MKFR is a studio album. The Wikipedia page for Demo album states: "A demo album is an album recorded for demonstration, often in order to obtain a record deal, rather than release." If the band sold the album to anyone, that by this definition would not be a demo album. However, obviously bands very frequently sell studio-recorded material to fans without sending it out to labels or magazines, which by the above definitions would mean they were not demos (though they would in reality unquestionably be considered so). I had a quick look for decently sourced definitions of the two terms but couldn't spot anything obvious. Which leaves us with a situation where MKFR is both a studio album and a demo album. Would a reasonable compromise be to refer to it as a 'self-released album' (which it certainly was to start with) with a note that the band don't consider part of their official discography (properly sourced, obviously)? Anyway, hope that's helpful. If not, just ignore me ;-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New discussion:
If you are not Rezter, Lykantrop or Blackngold29 add your comments to the "Comments from any users:" section below, thanks:

Dear Rezter
Ok. Ok, ok. As you can see, even the administrator tells us he is not someone who can solve this. I could just start to write down tons of some arguments right to the administrator or just keep repeating the old arguments and finding tons of new references and sources and write them to all the requests for comment. I tell you I can do it very well with no problem, but I am requesting you for one thing now: Lots of things have been told and lots of references and sources have been named. I don't see you can disprove my arguments and I see your arguments as well. And as you can see we have pretty big problem to agree with one thing together. Man, now I tell you one thing: I request you if you agree we make kind of a BREAKPOINT with this shit now. With this breakpoint I mean we just start another kind of discussion. This discussion until now is just fucking lame fight of you and me. I am not acknowledging I am the lame one and I am not telling you you are the lame one. Lets just leave the agression and all the attacks behind and start now one honest, calm conversation. I want to respect you and I want you to respect me. You told me I am stubborn, I told you you are stubborn. Lets leave all the shit behind and lets behave like humans that can just fucking talk about some shit and make a fucking conclusion. I just think if we don't keep this fucking enemy atmosphere we can just respect ourselves and not to talk like two aggrasive idiots. So I request you man now: Lets start this shit again with all arguments we have now, but without all the negative shit behind it, all must be Left Behind... I see it like this: I want to see one honest answer from you: "We will do this man" or "fuck you". There is no subliminal strategy behind this. I just dont think there is a way as we do it now. Cause I can keep my arguments endlessly and you (as I can se) too. I would see this new discussion like this: We don't start it just right now with explaining all the arguments. It would be very important not to fire to te other with fragmentary piecies of text. Anoher very important thing would be, we both would have to see it completely neutral. That is only possible if we respect ourselves. That means we take all arguments with the same importance. I would say we start the discussion just with collecting of all arguments with their sources. No talking about the shit just collecting a base of sources/arguments on that we can later built some other shit. If we are just shouting the arguments and tell about each other that it is a bullshit what the other says, how can anybody else see anything in such a subjective chaos with no credibility? So I would collect all information in short links with a short comment what they say. BUT i need your answer now: "We will do this man" or "fuck you". If you tell me "fuck you" we'll just do it as we did before if you wish, if "We will do this man", please dont do anything else, cause I have to tell you some things before we start. So ease your mind now, think about that shit and tell me "We will do this man" or "fuck you". I am waiting for your decision.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree man, I never wanted it to be uncivil. I'm sick of repeatign the same shit so, lets start a fresh, calm, neutral, open discussion.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree, my apologies to anyone if I have offended them. I think that this "new" conversation would benifit more from trying to find an agreeable heading for MFKR to be put under on the discography page, than arguing over what the album is. We all know who thinks what, and I don't think anybody's opinion will be swayed by further shots at attacking one another. I like Blackmetalbaz's suggestion of "self-released album". He has cited the Wikipedia articles about the definitions of "demo album" vs "studio album". It is my personal belif that if every album recorded in a "studio" is considered a studio album, then there must be some criteria for what a "studio" is. Do home studio's count? Serj Tankian recorded his solo album in a studio at his house, in what seems to me is a very nice studio. However, if somebody else were to record an album on their computer using a cheap microphone, does this also constitute a home studio? Another thing that I have asked twice and have yet to recieve an answer from anyone is "Where was MFKR recorded?", hopefully this will lead us to make a more informed conclusion. Thank You. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So we got it now. I have a plan for this and I'll explain the first part of it now. This discussion will have almost exact rules that nobody will break. The first thing is that we will have several departments in this discussion and only we can participate in all of them. The other users can take part of only one (special for them), otherwise it won't work (cause not everybody will read our rules at first and we dont want to fight with anybody -it is just for protection of the discussion for this moment). At first I thought the participant will be me and Rezter but we will (if you agree) take also Blackngold29, cause he was also talking about it for pretty long and it is better if we are three. The following discussion must have an exact structure and order. We need no discussions about MFKR right now (so I ask Blackngold29 to drop such a statements (as his last one) for now - we will do that later - stay cool). So at the beginning we will have 3 departments/sections. The first one is THIS part of the discussion we have now. Just this - beginning with the "Dear Rezter" ending with the next section. I would like to discuss just the discussion itself (for now) and add all your ideas about the discussion to this section/department. The other department is for collecting all usable facts about MFKR without any additional comments. This facts will all have link to the source where are they from, so that everybody knows that it is truth - we want no definitions or ideas or anything like this, just facts with sources. All of us must collect facts from everywhere about MFKR that have something to do with MFKR/album/demo - so that we have stuff to built on. But only with sources and no shit around it. No interpretations by us - we just put there the link where is it from an cite the important part of it right behind it. But we should use only really fine sources, that talk exactly about what we want (that means for example that I must leave such a sources as this one cause it calls also all singles as albums what is just bullshit - so just not such a bullshit sources = only reliable ones). That is the second section. Only we three can edit this two sections and if anybody disturbs us with ANYTHING or edits it, WE just delete it. But because we will not ignore the other users of course, there will be the third section for comments by other users. They can add any ideas or facts to this section and if we thing the facts with sources are reliable or usable for us, we will add them to the facts or talk LATER about the ideas (I thing this must be. We want nobody to involve directly this 2 parts for now). That is it for now, it will have progress subsequently. So we will collect the facts now about what are we gonna discuss later. Copy all the citations from books and any other facts - and nothing more for now. Is is ok for you?-- Lykantrop (Talk) 12:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would stay in this "fact-collecting phase" until Friday 14th of March (tomorrow) or Saturday 15th of March (the next day) temporarily. I'll have more time at the weekend. If somebody needs more time, we can make it longer of course.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I need some more time.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 10:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't need no time anymore. That's it. Any suggestions for now?-- Lykantrop (Talk) 13:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I stated before I think that we would benefit more from trying to find an agreeable heading for the Discography page (and something to call MFKR in it's article), than arguing over what MFKR is/isn't again. We have a good list of facts/statements about MFKR from good sources. Does anyone/everyone want to make some suggestions and then compare lists? We could use the facts to seem which heading seems to fits the best. If anyone has a better suggestion, please say so. Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to tell you my summaries of the sources now. My suggestion after I saw them all would be to add a headline "Studio and demo albums". I have no problem to say it is a demo album if you think it is ok. But there are also lots of different sources that use the term "demo" not even once and they talk about it as about a normal album. I would stay at MFKR as "demo album" and add "Studio and demo albums" above the albums. If it is a "demo album", it is still 50 minutes long and for a listener and critics it is the same like a normal studio album, rather than a simple "demo". So I would add the "Studio and demo albums" tag and rewrite the some small unclearness (if there are) over the articles. Or do you have better ideas?-- Lykantrop (Talk) 12:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You know what, that sounds like a good idea. The only thing I was scared about was MFKR being represented as an equal to their other 3 albums. So yeah I think you could put it under the same hood as the others as logn as there is a clear distinction on the discography page, my porposal is this: Click  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  12:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to the proposal in Rezter's sandbox now. It wouldn't be my first choice, but I don't think that's gonna happen. Anyone else approve/not approve? Blackngold29 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Lets do it. Thanks for the discussion, I think we are better "discussioners" now :) And I learned some extra english Lykantrop (Talk) 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Facts:

 * "link to the source" and "the quote"
 * p.46
 * "Slipknot's mission was to record a demo-album - which would eventually be titled Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat."
 * p.50
 * "McMahon further recalls a particularly humorous moment during the album's recording"
 * p.62
 * "The album itself stands today as a promising first effort, featuring a few rudimentary versions of tracks such as 'Only one' and 'Tattered and Torn' which would eventually come to their ultimate fruition on the Slipknot album three years on."
 * "Shawn Crahan admits that even he doesn't own one. 'At the time, that first album was the best thing ever,' he told hiponline.com. 'It's a sick, demented, magical album. But we don't support it anymore."
 * p.132
 * "The band record a series of demo, releasing their eight-track debut Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat."
 * p.19
 * "Although they loved playing live, the band were keen to get a record deal sand wanted to have a demo to five to prospective labels."
 * "In early 1996, the band started to collect all their recorded work together with a view to putting out an album."
 * p.19
 * "When you have six motivated muscicians in a band, things move rapidly, and at the very end of the year Shawn, Joey and Josh visited a local recording studio, SR Audio, located in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale, to record an album."
 * p.20
 * "Firstly, the band were booked into the studio in December to record a debut album."
 * p.118
 * "The newly re-christened sextet saw out 1995 by heading into Des Moines' SR Audio studio to work on a demo."
 * "tracks like 'Slipknot', 'Only One', 'Gently' and 'Tattered and Torn' would resurface on future recordings."
 * p.123
 * "No further pressings of MFKR were made and the album, which the band regard as strictly a demo, has become a sought-after rarity."
 * CD
 * "The band recorded their self produced and self distributed debut demo album Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat.."
 * The Metal Observer MFKR review
 * Well not exactly since this album was only printed to a number of 1000 copies and was soon lost in the empty void of the past. Even now, SLIPKNOT-members don't talk much about their true first release.(...)Another interesting fact with this CD is that it contains songs that can be found on their self-titled CD ["Only One" and "Tattered & Torn" as well as other riffs here and there from the other songs] and also "Gently" which should appear on their 3rd release "Iowa".
 * Sputnikmusic MFKR review
 * "The album kicks off with the 7 minute tune Slipknot.(...)This among other songs is what merits the album the 'experimental' tag.(...)This Slipknot's best album(...)I give the album a...3.75/5(...)"
 * AllmusicGuide MFKR review
 * "Originally released on Halloween 1996, the Lincoln, NE-based indie outpost -ismist Recordings picked up the album for distribution in summer 1997.(...)but the group manages to integrate a healthy sense of variety across the album."
 * AllmusicGuide MFKR bio
 * On Halloween 1996, Slipknot self-released an album called Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat., which began to build a buzz around the group once it found its way to several labels.(...)Slipknot recorded their official, self-titled debut album, which was released in 1999.
 * Roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net news
 * "SLIPKNOT's self-released demo album from 1996, entitled "Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat","  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rollingstone Slipknot album Review
 * The band's second LP is metal with a capital m(...)(talking about 99's self-titled album)
 * Biography on official MFKR website
 * Soon Shawn contacted Mike Lawyer, due to an interest in recording some studio work.(...)The band soon started work on their first project, dubbed, MFKR. "Mate Feed Kill Repeat". (...)During his arrival, the MFKR album was already in its mixing stages. The mixing of MFKR was anything but smooth, each song being remixed many times.(...)The album was sent out to many people and a person named Sophia at a local station KKDM managed to hear it and liked it.(...)The band continued the onslaught of supporting their debut Mate Feed Kill Repeat. According to ISMIST records the distributor, there were only 1000 copies of this made and distributed by the band as a promotional tool.
 * FAQ on official MFKR website
 * What is "Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat."? and where do I get it? - Shawn explains "In 96 we made our first album called, "MATE. FEED. KILL. REPEAT." And that album was, basically, a kind of soul searching musical experience. We decided that we were going to experiment with a whole bunch of different musical styles to which we would assemble under the name SLIPKNOT". This RARE ass album is now out of print. Only 1,000 copies were ever made. By the time the record was released officially through Distributor -ISMIST, their were only about half left, most were given away as promo's during gigs.
 * Facts on official MFKR website
 * The album cost around $15,000 to record, mix, master, and reproduce.(...)Slipknot dedicated the album to(...)
 * "Crowz" was recorded, and re-recorded, and re-recorded... Before Slipknot got signed they were working on a "revised" MFKR with better produced versions of those songs, along with newer stuff that was written with Corey on vocals, This was to do two things: 1) Give them a quality demo to shop to labels. 2) If not signed, they could put it out independently as a replacement for MFKR. Some of this stuff was recorded at SR with Sean McMahon, some was done at Juniors' Motel in Otho. It really depended on what was needed at the time. Some of those songs have many multiple versions and mixes. For example, there are at least two versions of 'Prosthetics' that I have heard prior to the S/T. Some songs, like Snap, were done quickly at Otho and sent out as a demo to give record companies something new compared to MFKR.
 * matefeedkillrepeat.com
 * Welcome to MateFeedKillRepeat.com - the only website dedicated to supplying reliable and accurate information about the legitimacy of the Slipknot Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. album.
 * Black-Goat.com MFKR facts
 * MFKR, otherwise known as Mate Feed Kill Repeat was Slipknot's very first album, created in 1996. The album is very experimental, covering a wide range of styles and genres. The album is very rare and is now out of print, only 1000 copies were ever made and when distributor -Ismist picked it up only half were left, the rest being given out as promos at gigs, etc... . You can find one of these albums at EBay rock memorabilia for the hefty price of $350.
 * Within the MFKR album there are(....)
 * 742617000027: This number is the barcode number on the Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat album (....)
 * Black-Goat.com facts
 * Slipknot's self-titled second album was re-released after Corey Taylor
 * MFKR, otherwise known as Mate Feed Kill Repeat was Slipknot's very first album, created in 1996. The album is very experimental, covering a wide range of styles and genres. The album is very rare and is now out of print, only 1000 copies were ever made and when distributor -Ismist picked it up only half were left, the rest being given out as promos at gigs, etc... . You can find one of these albums at EBay rock memorabilia for the hefty price of $350.
 * Within the MFKR album there are(....)
 * 742617000027: This number is the barcode number on the Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat album (....)
 * Black-Goat.com facts
 * Slipknot's self-titled second album was re-released after Corey Taylor

Comments from any users:
If you are not Rezter, Lykantrop or Blackngold29 add your comments there and not upwards please, thanks:

Well i've been following this discussion for a while now, and my personal opinion is that MFKR is a demo. But that is my opinion. Anyway, in response to Blackngold29's question "where was MFKR recorded?" if you go to http://www.mfkr1.com/ and navigate to the 'discography' section, then it says in that block of writing that it was recorded in a studio, and for 15000$. Now this is an opinion, but usually if someone was to refer to a studio it would be a professional one rather than a home studio. They also had a producer called Sean Mcmahon but he left. "Shawn & Anders made the all the various sample sounds in the studio." Once again refering to a studio, so i doubt that they meant a home studio. This was all written by the band, maybe you can dig some other stuff from that site too? Thanks. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.
Another un-verifiable thing i saw on TV. On the Colbert report, Stephen said that Hillary Clinton lost favor with evangilical christians when shes was briefly the keyboard player for Slipknot. He also said she roomed with "the guy with chop sticks in his face" sigh. wish i could find a source.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That Colbert is a funny guy.Blackngold29 (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Injuries
In the previous wikipedia Slipknot page, an injuries section was allowed. I'm just wondering if we wil be able to bring that type of artical back. Would that be malinformation or to much of a hassel? I personally found it very insightful and interesting. It showed how vulnerable and human they are and how much they push themselves (for the fans and for thier own accord) to the brink of extreme. It would also shed some light on how active and agressive their concerts are. ...just my opinion.  Blind_Heretic666  02:01 AM, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be in list form, like it formerly was and it's not like there are enough sources to create a comprehensive list of them. Maybe a paragraph could be constructed but still... it's relatively pointless information. It's not like you list the injuries on a skateboarders article, but I'm sure they have a lot more.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  01:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True...it really is quite a very minute detail that im sure maggots can do without. thanks for the input.  Blind_Heretic666  10:17 PM, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Crowz
The article of Crowz has been removed 4 times from Wikipedia now on the grounds of verifiability. I have searched for hours on the internet and I have books, magazines, CDs, DVDs and videos related to the band and I have never found one reliable source related to this. YES maybe the band were writing and recording new material during the period between MFKR and Slipknot. However, there was never any TITLE or and TRACK LISTING, released. The only sources that claim such things are fan websites, which some even offer a download of. Just because they piled a bunch of unreleased tracks together and named it "Crowz" does NOT make it an album. Please refrain from mentioning this internet rumour on Wikipedia.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote the offical Slipknot forums: "To quote Mick Thomson directly and exactly;-" THERE IS NO RECORD CALLED CROWZ.". This quote can be seen here. I do not, however, know the exact interview that he said this in. If this does not end the discussion on Crowz, I don't know what will. Blackngold29 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know about Crowz, but I have listened to a song named "Coleslaw" that was dated 1997, and listed Corey Taylor on vocals and Anders Colsifini on percussion (among the rest of Slipknot)... There was another called "Despise" that was just Anders singing, but still listed Corey as a member. These songs exist. Maybe they're just rare b-sides. Dark Executioner (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just found a reliable source accidentally [http://www.mfkrboard.com/mfkr/bio_files/Bio.htm Following this sudden change the band returned to the studio to re-record the songs on their second cd titled "Crowz" - minus Anders' vocals. Of these songs included, "Gently", "Do Nothing", "Slipknot", "Tattered and Torn", "Me Inside", "Carve", "Coleslaw", "Scissors", "Windows" and "May 17th" a song written by Shawn. Crowz was to be released October 31st 1997.] or just /bio. This should be enough to mention it in the article cause the source is official MFKR web and there is also little bit more about it on the site. But I dont know if an unreleased album can have its own article due to notability-- Lykantrop (Talk) 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter what either MFKR1.com or MateFeedKillRepeat.com claim they are not official sites the only official sites from Slipknot Slipknot1.com and OutsideTheNine.com. As a result of this they can't be classed as reliable sources because they claim they're official.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be against the law if mfkr1.com claimed they are official and they would not be. No website in the whole internet may claim it is official when it is not. And if any website does, it is immediately forbidden by police. mfkr1.com must be official of course, otherwise Slipknot would denounce them and the police would take their servers. There is no website in the internet claiming it is official when it is not. On matefeedkillrepeat.com is nothing about beeing official. But I am not defending Crowz. Crowz has never been released. It does not exist.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 12:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the legal side of it but I know it is not supported by Slipknot or affiliated with the band. If you look on the contact page you can see that the team are fans. They do however say they have been linked to or supported by ex band members and they have interviews with them and other people close to the band, I don't think this can be enough to claim it an "Official" site.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at Mediation: Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. issue
Before I go on, I would like to state my opinion on this issue... I personally do not listen to Slipknot, and I'm sure I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about the band as all of you are. But from what I can see, Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. can hardly be called an album. There exists a similar situation with the band Tool: their first-ever release, 72826, shares many similarities with the Slipknot album Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat.


 * Both MFKR and 72826 were self-released by their respective bands.
 * Both MFKR and 72826 were of limited supply, and now are valuable collector's items.
 * Both MFKR and 72826 were released in the early days of their respective bands.
 * Slipknot has refrained from rereleasing MFKR. Tool has refrained from rereleasing 72826.
 * Songs from MFKR (specifically "Slipknot" and "Gently") have appeared on later Slipknot albums. Likewise, songs from 72826 (specifically "Hush," "Crawl Away," and "Sober") have appeared on later Tool albums.

See, 72826 is explicitly classified as a demo. And judging by the similarities between both works, MFKR should also be classified as a demo. There's additionally at least another instance of very circumstantial evidence that seems to imply MFKR is a demo: Paul Gray, the bassist of Slipknot, was quoted as saying in an interview with Slipknot-Metal, "... Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. was just a demo that we recorded ourselves ... I don't even consider that a "record."

To me at least, this issue seems pretty clear-cut in terms of mediation. I hold that the following courses of action should be taken to resolve the issue:


 * The Wikipedia article on Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat., as well as all other articles which mention Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat., should mention that it's a demo rather than a full album.
 * A section may be added to the article on MFKR stating something along the lines of "it is a common debate amongst Slipknot fans whether Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. is a full album or a demo. Evidence has been presented on both sides, etc." That should be the extent that the article refers to this conflict and its resolution.

If anyone needs any further clarification on the issue, drop me a line at my talk page. --Kagetsu Tohya (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the mediation, however you said that "it is a common debate amongst Slipknot fans whether Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. is a full album or a demo. Evidence has been presented on both sides, etc." should be added to the MFKR article, and I disagree with this. I've heard of very few people argue this point, most fans respect the band's view. That being said, if it will resolve the debate, then go for it. Thank you. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * More importantly, fan arguments over any issue are not Wikipedia-worthy without a reliable source to confirm it. In other words, forums or Wikipedia talk pages cannot be cited. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When the statement on the forum was officially released from the band members, I would consider that as reliable. Simply becuase it was released in the format of a forum does not automatically make it unreliable. There was a a dispute, it was throughly discussed, the proper steps were taken to call in a mediator; The mediator gave his/her judgement, why is it not accepted? I'm not an expert, but arguing with a mediator seems like a little bit overboard. Blackngold29 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I agree, it's not something I really care about. It's strikes me as a semantic issue anyhow. My point was that I hate Wikipedia articles that includes statements like 'fans debate xyz'. Who cares? It's not notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then we don't have to mention the issue whatsoever. I'm fine with non-ad-hominem arguments. --Kagetsu Tohya (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keyboard?
In this video at 2:27, you can clearly see a keyboard. What's up with that, I was never aware that they used one. Anyone know? Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was Craig who was using it. I've seen that done loads of times. As you know Craig is a sampler and you can use keyboards easily to play samples. See Sampler (musical instrument) it says "Usually a sampler is controlled from an attached music keyboard, or from an external MIDI source." and I've seen him use both before.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  09:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've only seen him use the sampler. It's probably not that big of a deal, should it be in the article? Blackngold29 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. "Sampling" is definitely enough. I mean you don't want to put "Keyboards", because technically he doesn't play keyboards for the band. He implements keyboards to help play samples so I don't think you need to add anything more.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  15:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image
I know we have some policy about no copy right images used only to show what people look like, but i think in this case we can make an exception. The masks are such a part of the band we really cant do without them. Thoughts? Comments?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is an important part of the band, and i think it would help people understand them more. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Collector's Box
AMG has a listing for the "Collector's Box", which was released in 2006 and includes, according to Amazon "...a 3 CD set and tells the complete story of the band through spoken word biographies, band interviews. Includes a fold out poster and features many rarely seen photographs." I've seen this in the store a few times, however did not know if it was an offical release, though it would appear it is; it is not listed on the offical site anywhere I can find, as offical or otherwise. Amazon does have other releases that are listed as Slipknot albums/DVDs that are not relesed from the band. I only bring this up becuase it is listed on AMG, which is usually a good source. Should any mention of this be made, either in this article or one the discography article? Thank You. Blackngold29 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not an official release, it was released by Chrome Dreams. It actually says on the cover that it is not authorized by the band, their record company or management.  REZTER   TALK   &oslash;  22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. It is odd that AMG has it listed as an album then. Thank you! Blackngold29 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants a "Best-of" Slipknot package (despite the fact that they only have three studio albums), then all you have to do is make a mix-CD from your favorite Slipknot songs off of all their albums. Just felt like throwing in my two cents. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

List of injuries
Does this really have a place here? Beyond noting that the band occasionally injure themselves, I'm not sure how notable it is. My other two concerns are firstly that it looks extremely unsightly, and secondly that I don't know whether 'slipknot-metal.com' is a reliable source. If it's a fan site then any material using it as a source must be removed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed because it was pointless. It was added a few hours ago by a random editor. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot's genre
Bloodfall (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I am sending this message to talk about what genre of music Slipknot is. I do not believe that their genre is Nu metal. Possibly, in thier Vol.3: album they are, but in thier first two albums(slipknot and Iowa) Thay have displayed more of a metalcore style than a Nu Metal one. They are widley known as Nu/alternative metal but, however, this is probably is beilieved because of Ther Vol3: album. Their other albums have not made much of a mainstream appearance but their style was very similar to Demon Hunter's and Killswitch Engage (wich are Metalcore groups.)Bloodfall (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)BloodfallBloodfall (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been ongoing discussions as to what genre they are, you can check the archives. Personally, I do not care what genre any band is considered, so I don't spend much time considering it. However, I think that the genre's used come from reliable sources. I don't think you can say that because two of three albums are one thing or the other; that you can discount what they've done on the third. Blackngold29 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * agree --Vik.sanchez (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, however, I meant to rate the two albums metalcore. I did not mean to overall rate the band metalcore. I do not care that much about the genre much either, but I am posting a recommandation. I did this because other alternative or Nu metal bands are much softer than slipknot, even in their Vol3: album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodfall (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

oops........ Did my last comment wrong. I must ask, what archives are you talking about?(If it is this site, well, i'm new here.)Bloodfall (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Bloodfall
 * If you look at the top there is a box called "Archives", you can look in there at old discussions. While we're on the subject, due to Wikipedia policy reliable sources are needed for claims and most sources claim the band are nu/alternative metal. I'm not saying I agree with this, it's just their policy.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of these souces are not reliable. Most of the sources are fansites, people who just like the music.
 * If you look at the References section of the article you will see that all the sources are reliable. None of them are fansites, the ones referring to the genre are professional music review websites. Please see WP:OR and refrain from making edits without reliable sources.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  22:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I only made the change cause i was trying to see if anyone would change it, and I happened to be on the article. (since I tried it before so I decided to do It again. Bloodfall (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Bloodfall

What Genre Is Slipknot?(final claimfrom me about it)
--Bloodfall (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Slipknot displays many styles in their music. They are widley known as Nu metal, but,they provide styles such as Metalcore, thrash metal, (some) Death Metal, Black Ambient, and even Rapcore or Hip-hop. To be honest, I do not care about what genre they are very much, but It is not all true to say slipknot is Nu Metal.(and The website is created to send out accurate info.) The reason why I am saying this is because I listen to their music, and well, it is very Nu-metal like but it Displays styles such as, fast, hardcore punk patterns, Rapping and hip-hop beats and agressive death metal sounds. They also display Thrash-Metal rifting.
 * I know what you mean. You can say all this (if you can give sources) in the article. The infobox is to mention the main genre(s) of the band, not every one.-- Lykantrop (Talk) 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that Slipknot cover a lot of ground in their music, your statement regarding 'black ambient' is ridiculous. Find reliable sources or just don't bother commenting. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about multi-genre heavy metal? Dark Executioner (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And how about we stop trying to impose ridiculous ideas on that article? I have worked on several nu metal band articles, and editors frequently try to remove "nu metal" from lists or introductions, or try to drown "nu metal" with a bunch of ridiculous comparisions (calling System of a Down avant-garde metal, Slipknot black ambient, etc.). Trying to replace "nu metal" by "alternative metal" has been proposed so many times. But think about it, is there any nu metal band that isn't labeled as alternative metal, despite the fact that nu metal is a subgenre/derived form of alternative metal? Come on guys, lets stop acting like idiots on talk pages when it comes to genres. I think the genres in the infobox are fine as they are and reflect neutrality.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   19:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * People are so touchy about nu-metal. Really, it's not that bad of a genre. It was originally a nifty thing to combine hip-hop's beats and rhymes with the aggression and music of heavy metal, it just got too generalized and overused in the early 2000s, and most of the artists failed to expand its horizons and borders. Slipknot were definetely a driving force in nu-metal's prime days, but then they shifted to a more generalized heavy-metal sound. Changing of the times, a desire to experiment... Whatever be the case, yes, nu-metal should stay. Because if nu-metal were basketball, then Slipknot would be its Michael Jordan or Kobe. Dark Executioner (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)